Vegetarianism

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Hello,

I am a semi-vegetarian, meaning that I eat seafood. I'm not eating animal/bird meat because of health reasons. I think that meat is too heavy. When I ate a lot of it, I would get this physiological feeling that my body was working hard to digest it and I didn't like the feeling.

Well, since this is a morality forum, I'm wondering what people have to say about eating/not eating meat from a moral perspective. I know many vegetarians are such because they object to animal cruelty and take their eating habits very close to heart. Not something I entirely understand...

[PTT]

If no part of the meal ever had legs, then it's not a meal!

And no, I don't eat seafood due to an allergy to the stuff.

Basically, if it tastes good and doesn't make me puke, come out in a rash or die, I'll eat it.

PTT

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Hello,

I am a semi-vegetarian, meaning that I eat seafood. I'm not eating animal/bird meat because of health reasons. ...

Well, since this is a morality forum, I'm wondering what people have to say about eating/not eating meat from a moral perspective.

The only reason to be a vegeterian is for moral reasons.
Humans are great apes and great apes are omnivores. In fact it was meat eating that enabled us to develope our large brains. Chimps, bonobos and gorillas all eat meat. (The gorillas I work with like to have a hamburger every now and then with lots of ketchup, hold the pickle).
If you give up meat you'll need to pay very close attention to your diet to replace the nutrients you'll be losing. Please note the shape of gorillas bodies and the large size of their digestive tracks. This is to get everything they can out of the plants that form the majority of their diets. Humans aren't shapped like that anymore, so you'll have to increase the amount of what you eat.

Neighbors of mine were such strict vegans that they wouldn't feed their cat any meat...poor thing lost most of it's fur before it ran away.

[The Other Michael]

There have been a number of discussions on this subject in MF&P in the past. I'd suggest that everyone interested in the topic (who hasn't already seen those earlier threads) make use of the search function to find those threads and review them.

Keep in mind that it has not been unusual for threads on this topic to be closed after they deteriorated beyond any recovery. If this thread continues, everyone needs to remember to address arguments and not the people making the arguments. In fact, reviewing the MF&P forum rules in the sticky at the top of the forum wouldn't be a bad idea for those who haven't already read them.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

[Gothic_J]

I think its possible to survive on a non meat diet. I used to go for months on end on cereal and pizza. so, to use peta's argument, meat diets arent partiucarly necessary.

on the other hand, I was spending most of my time on the computer, and lacked the energy for a quarter mile run. when I started doing my 3 mile jogs, I needed a high meat diet.

on the gripping hand, I regret the necessity of needing meat, however much I like the taste and energy it provides. butcher shops are not pleasant places, although maddox might disagree. if it were possible to just produce meat by the single line of genes that make filet mignon - without tossing in that annoying brain that complicates the ethics - I might prefer it. same meat, no awareness. just nice big loaves of organic produce.

[pariah]

i cant see any moral reasons to not eat animals. it just doesn't make sense...morals are defined by society, as are rights. they certianly arent something intrinsic...its ridiculous to act as if animals have rights.

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Neighbors of mine were such strict vegans that they wouldn't feed their cat any meat...poor thing lost most of it's fur before it ran away.
I was about to complain how cruel that was, forcing their views on a helpless animals, then I remembered that I regularly eat cows and birds.

I agree with Gothic_J. My body can use meat. I like meat. But I still feel uncomfortable about it if I think too much. I'm not about to go vegan or anything, it's just a little voice that occasionally, when I'm scoffing at somebody else about something involving animals, whispers "hypocrite" in the back of my mind.

Must be one of them thar concience thingies. I really should have it removed some day.

[Ensign Morituri]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean


Neighbors of mine were such strict vegans that they wouldn't feed their cat any meat...poor thing lost most of it's fur before it ran away.

That makes me so f****ing mad. Cats require animal protein in order to survive! Ignorant jerks.

[pariah]

Originally posted by Taffer
Must be one of them thar concience thingies. I really should have it removed some day.

For eating meat just like every other omnivore? Is the bear evil too?

My vegetarian friends say "yeah well you keep them in pens and stuff and the bear hunts". Well last time I checked I wasn't 8 feet tall, didn't have 3 inch long razor sharp claws, the ability to effortlessly climb trees, have giant arms...blah

[Sarpedon]

I have concluded that it is immoral to eat animals if you consider that animals have any rights. I have also decided that if animals have any rights, they must logically have all the rights as humans. There being no rational basis for giving them one and not the other. The alternative is to believe that they have no rights and can be used at pleasure. Now, as I see it, the basis for human rights is human society. I do not believe in "natural rights." That people don't have natural rights can be shown by throwing someone into the ocean, and watching the forces of nature kill them. We have rights because of society. Animals do not recognize human society, or human rights. Therefor they are not a part of human society. Therefore they have no rights. Therefore they be used at pleasure. I enjoy eating meat, and I do not feel guilty about it. Similarly, a person may enjoy dipping live cats into vats of acid, this is no different for my liking of meat. We both gain pleasure from the death of an animal. As animals have no rights, neither thing is wrong. I do not enjoy inflicting pain upon animals, but I recognize that my pleasure in eating meat is dependant upon pain and suffering of an animal. It would be hypocritical of me to be judgemental of other people who derive pleasure from the pain of animals, regardless of the means used.

This may be disturbing to some people.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Thanks to those replied.


The only reason to be a vegeterian is for moral reasons.
Humans are great apes and great apes are omnivores. In fact it was meat eating that enabled us to develope our large brains. Chimps, bonobos and gorillas all eat meat. (The gorillas I work with like to have a hamburger every now and then with lots of ketchup, hold the pickle).
If you give up meat you'll need to pay very close attention to your diet to replace the nutrients you'll be losing. Please note the shape of gorillas bodies and the large size of their digestive tracks. This is to get everything they can out of the plants that form the majority of their diets. Humans aren't shapped like that anymore, so you'll have to increase the amount of what you eat.



Well, like I said, I eat fish so I don't really qualify for a vegetarian. But I really don't feel that much difference between now and when I ate animal meat. I don't feel weaker or anything, even though I have to agree that I now eat a bit more than I used to. The only danger of such a diet, I think, is that one can start eating a lot of things like bakery and pasta, which make you outright fat. I made this mistake and now I'm somewhat overweight and working on it.

I guess, from what I just said it follows that meat or no meat, there isn't that much difference. I like to eat this way better because I just don't like the way many meet products feel when you eat them.

Now you said that the only reason to be a vegetarian is for moral reasons. Not true. A couple of people I work with are vegetarian but not because they feel sorry for animals but because they believe in theories about the harm that meat does to health. They bring up hormones, cholesterol and other stuff. I also eat the way I eat because this diet is ligher and I feal cleaner (sounds silly to some but that's how I feel...)-- not because I'm an animal right activist.


i cant see any moral reasons to not eat animals. it just doesn't make sense...morals are defined by society, as are rights. they certianly arent something intrinsic...its ridiculous to act as if animals have rights.


What? By the logic that morality is defined by society, human rights aren't somewhat intrinsic either. The difference between a human and an animal is in degree-- not quality. If you are a moral relativist you must agree that the human right concept is arbitrary too. This is really a philosophy that the strongest sets the rules (otherwise known as "jungle law") and morality has no place there. Luckily, humanity has somewhat evolved since its jungle period...


That makes me so f****ing mad. Cats require animal protein in order to survive! Ignorant jerks.


True. The feline are predators by nature. Unlike us, humans, they have no choice. Those people are just stubborn and not very bright...

...Now let me share my view on the morality of animal eating. I really hate cruelty to animals (never hurt one) and the sight of dead or butchered animals really makes me sick. A part of me feels that meat-eating is an unnecessary cruelty; unnecessary because people can survive without that meat just fine (look at me :) )

On the other hand, I have in my head a pyramide of value of different life forms. On the very bottom are bacteria, then plants, then fish, reptiles, birds, mammals and, finally, humans. As you can see the futher up the evolutionary stair the being is, the worse it is to deprive that being of life. In other words, the closer a life form is to human being, the more reprehensible it is to hurt it. Cannibalism is a diet where the pyramide is ignored entirely and only the most savage tribes practice it. My theory is, then, the more human beings progress, the bigger part of the pyramide they deny as food.

The pyramide is not arbitrary-- it is arranged by complexity of life forms and thus, their ability to suffer. Humans, it seems, suffer the most and the lower you go down the evolutionary pyramide, the less the creatures suffer.

Now since I believe that humans have the highest value, I also belive that if their survival is necessary every life form below them they must sacrifice. There's just no way, I belive, a human being in their right mind should not take advantage of a cow or a chicken when there's not choice! In many environments (like Siberia, where I grew up), there is no choice. Plant food is not as abundant so you must eat animals or be malnourished. Those who don't eat meat there, I think, are foolish (unless they are reach and can afford to by vegetables and nuts in the ferocious winter).

So, I think, if eating animals can be avoided with reasonable effort, it's better to do that. If only meat is available or if getting vegetarian food seriously hampers your productivity-- forget about it.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Sarpedon
I have concluded that it is immoral to eat animals if you consider that animals have any rights. I have also decided that if animals have any rights, they must logically have all the rights as humans. There being no rational basis for giving them one and not the other. The alternative is to believe that they have no rights and can be used at pleasure. Now, as I see it, the basis for human rights is human society. I do not believe in "natural rights." That people don't have natural rights can be shown by throwing someone into the ocean, and watching the forces of nature kill them. We have rights because of society. Animals do not recognize human society, or human rights. Therefor they are not a part of human society. Therefore they have no rights. Therefore they be used at pleasure. I enjoy eating meat, and I do not feel guilty about it. Similarly, a person may enjoy dipping live cats into vats of acid, this is no different for my liking of meat. We both gain pleasure from the death of an animal. As animals have no rights, neither thing is wrong. I do not enjoy inflicting pain upon animals, but I recognize that my pleasure in eating meat is dependant upon pain and suffering of an animal. It would be hypocritical of me to be judgemental of other people who derive pleasure from the pain of animals, regardless of the means used.

This may be disturbing to some people.

It IS disturbing. Killing any being without need is savage and barbaric in my understanding. And if that's only for pleasure, I'd call it sadism-- plain and simple. But...this is a forum where logics is appreciated and this is just a belief of mine.

However, your argument is not perfect. Children or mentally challenged people do not play a full role in the society. Also, foreigners are not a part of this particuler society. By your logic, they should have less rights (is it OK to eat them, by the way?).

Finally, I would propose a different approach. You say that rights are defined by the society and only make sense in the contest of the society. True, but if we look deeper, we'll see a REASON for these rights. That reason is the belief in the value of human life and also in immorality of inflicting unnecessary pain. Humans and animals are biologically similar and hence the logic should apply to both-- we should avoid inflicting pain on either.

Now my "pyramide" (see above) comes in. As realists, we have to realize that earth is not Eden and some sacrifices need to be made. However, we should approach them as unpleasant neccesities and avoid them as much as possible. It is reasonable to believe that amimals that are more primitive than us suffer less and thus, killing a primitive animal is "better" from a humanistic perspective then killing a complex one (humans are the most complex and killing them is thus the worst); both, should be minimized, though.

I think my picture is not as black&white as yours and allows for degrees and variations.

[Gothic_J]

of course, I dont think the cruz of the argument is that we kill animals. anyone who has a basic understanding of biology understands that life comes from death.

instead, I find that the main part of the argument is that we are unneeccarily cruel to animals while processing them. youve heard the rants, Im sure. living their entire lives without seeing sunlight (much like some goths ;)), not able to move around, until they are brought into a line and begun their dismemberment, often before they are dead. also, Im told some of the meat is not particularly clean - making meat fast is more profitable then checking for death and cleansliness.

on the other side, its a gruesome death for lots of forest animals when we plant and harvest grain feilds. as I said, life comes from death. my personal thought is that many animals dont live too well in the wild, starving with the weather, freezing, etc. tough life for our walking meat loafs either way.

my reccomendation would be the genemods, mentioned last post. no life taken. but thats some years away, and a bit rough on the millions of animals munched on the meantime.

-shrugs- we're omnivores, and are going to eat meat. bad karma for those who happen to be on the dinnerplate.

[Beleg_Strongbow]

I myself am I vegetarian, because I find that eating something that was once living and breathing, just as I am, is gross. I also think that people are hypocrites. They drive past a farm and say, "Cute cows." not seeming to care that those cows will all be killed just so they can enjoy a hamburger. People get all sad when things are tested on animals, or if someone abuses a pet, but don't seem to care that millions of animals are being killed just because they like the taste of meat. A perfect example: My sister watched a show on chicken processing, the whole time saying, "Ohhhh, poor chickens!" as she watched baby chicks being sorted, the males grinded up, and the females getting their beaks burnt off. Then, the next day, she goes and eats a plate of chicken wings. What's up with that thinking? Also, many people are discusted by the eatern practice of eating dogs. Well, what's the difference between a dog, and a cow, chicken, or pig? Some people have those animals for pets, and and get just as close to them as any dog. I think, in that area, people are just as hypocritical as fundies!

[pariah]

Sergey:

What? By the logic that morality is defined by society, human rights aren't somewhat intrinsic either. The difference between a human and an animal is in degree-- not quality. If you are a moral relativist you must agree that the human right concept is arbitrary too. This is really a philosophy that the strongest sets the rules (otherwise known as "jungle law") and morality has no place there. Luckily, humanity has somewhat evolved since its jungle period...

Human rights arent intrinsic. Society acts as if they were. You are right, the difference between human and animal is not quality of some sort. Of course the human right concept is arbitrary. But since they are defined by a society, if the society does not extend the same rights to animals (of course it wouldnt, society exists to benefit those who make it up, and only humans make up our society), they therefore have no rights.

As for dipping cats in vats of acid, well I sure don't care if someone does but thats still pretty fucking sick.

They drive past a farm and say, "Cute cows." not seeming to care that those cows will all be killed just so they can enjoy a hamburger.

Thats not hypocritical. The cows are cute when they are alive, and tastey when dead. why do you think its hypocritical? the rest inst very hyppocritical either. not very many people delight in seeing things die...

[DigitalChicken]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Well, since this is a morality forum, I'm wondering what people have to say about eating/not eating meat from a moral perspective.

I would have to say, "Oh Please no! Why?! Why?! Why is there another thread on vegetarianism!?!?!"

DC

[Ennui-it]

Gothic_J said:
on the gripping hand,

This made me smile. And no, I have nothing of value to contribute to this thread. Carry on.

[alek0]

I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons. In my opinion, it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on sentient creatures. I can survive without meat, have done so for 17 years, I am not overweight, and in highschool I used to train and compete in swimming free style and never suffered lack of energy. My iron levels are fine too.
My father (MD) made me have a full blood test every time I visited home (he'd just take me to the lab and tell them to do everything) and I put up with it just to see the look on his face when everything comes back normal :)

Vegetarian diet can be quite healthy (there are studies on lower risk of heart disease and some cancers) if one pays attention to nutrition and more care is needed to do so than for an average omnivore. For me, it is worth it because as I said my conscience would never let me get away with delibrately causing pain to others, human or animal. As someone said already, it is a difference of a degree not of quality. I have pets and I know that they have feelings. To me they can never be "just an animal" they are membvers of the family and only babies I'll ever have.
I couldn't imagine eating them and I don't see why should I feel different about cows, pigs, etc. I don't feel as strongly about eating things lower down the pyramid (i.e. fish, seafood, locusts (better choice than seafood according to the bible) etc.), but I have chosen not to eat them for health reasons (heavy metals content, PCBs etc.).

So, to summarize, I am a vegetarian because I think it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering to any living creature which is capable of having feelings. My morals are mainly based on avoidance of causing unnecessary suffering. If it can suffer, human or animal, my conscience would never let me get away with deliberately hurting it if I can avoid doing so.

Btw, my cats eat meat. I try to get them organic food whenever I can because I don't approve of factory farming, but if that is not available any good quality food will do. Unlike me, cats need meat and they will get meat. I'm sick and tired of ridicilous statements of animal rights extremists promoting vegetarian diet for cats. That's just plain crazy.

[pariah]

Originally posted by alek0
So, to summarize, I am a vegetarian because I think it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering to any living creature which is capable of having feelings. My morals are mainly based on avoidance of causing unnecessary suffering. If it can suffer, human or animal, my conscience would never let me get away with deliberately hurting it if I can avoid doing so.

Do you consider domestic house cats to be immoral? My kitty kills things all the time, and doesn't eat them.

Where do your morals/ethics come from?

[Chicken Girl]

Another vegetarian weighing in...

I don't eat meat because

1) I believe it's wrong to kill a living, breathing, feeling creature when it's not necessary. And before anyone asks, if I were stranded in the woods with no edible plants and a bunch of deer, yes, I would eat the deer to avoid starvation. But, since I'm not stranded in the woods yet, and I have plenty of non-meat food sources available to me, I choose not to eat meat.

2) I think meat is yucky. I don't like the smell or texture of most kinds of meat. I don't like the idea of eating a dead animal. I'm not afraid to admit it.

3) Health reasons. Meat is high in saturated fat and cholesterol.

I don't have any nutritional deficiencies, I take a multivitamin, and my iron count is just fine (last time I checked I think it was around 14).

My guinea pig is a strict herbivore, and as such, eats a strict herbivore diet.

My betta is a carnivore, and as such, eats a near-100% meat diet - betta pellets, brine shrimp, and bloodworms.

[EGGO]

...I eat seafood. I'm not eating animal/bird meat because of health reasons.

I don't know if you ever knew this, but seafood I think is unhealthier. Mostly because of the minute mercury levels build up.

It's worse if you eat swordfish and some other types of fish (I forgot off the top of my head).

My friend's dad also never eats at a seafood restaraunt simply because he never trusts how well the cook cooked his fish. Dunny why I said that, but I felt it was somewhat related.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by alek0
I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons. In my opinion, it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on sentient creatures. I can survive without meat, have done so for 17 years, I am not overweight, and in highschool I used to train and compete in swimming free style and never suffered lack of energy. My iron levels are fine too.
My father (MD) made me have a full blood test every time I visited home (he'd just take me to the lab and tell them to do everything) and I put up with it just to see the look on his face when everything comes back normal :)

Vegetarian diet can be quite healthy (there are studies on lower risk of heart disease and some cancers) if one pays attention to nutrition and more care is needed to do so than for an average omnivore. For me, it is worth it because as I said my conscience would never let me get away with delibrately causing pain to others, human or animal. As someone said already, it is a difference of a degree not of quality. I have pets and I know that they have feelings. To me they can never be "just an animal" they are membvers of the family and only babies I'll ever have.
I couldn't imagine eating them and I don't see why should I feel different about cows, pigs, etc. I don't feel as strongly about eating things lower down the pyramid (i.e. fish, seafood, locusts (better choice than seafood according to the bible) etc.), but I have chosen not to eat them for health reasons (heavy metals content, PCBs etc.).

So, to summarize, I am a vegetarian because I think it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering to any living creature which is capable of having feelings. My morals are mainly based on avoidance of causing unnecessary suffering. If it can suffer, human or animal, my conscience would never let me get away with deliberately hurting it if I can avoid doing so.

Btw, my cats eat meat. I try to get them organic food whenever I can because I don't approve of factory farming, but if that is not available any good quality food will do. Unlike me, cats need meat and they will get meat. I'm sick and tired of ridicilous statements of animal rights extremists promoting vegetarian diet for cats. That's just plain crazy.

Well put, alek0. I'm not sure I am as consistent regarding the issue myself.

I think that the decision to be vegetarian is not as logical as it is emotional. Some things just feel wrong. And since here we mostly see people who prefer mind over heart, I'm afraid it's hard to get that much sympathy.

But hey, follow your heart and don't listen to what people think...there are millions of ways to think but your heart and your intuition are one and only :cool:

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by EGGO
I don't know if you ever knew this, but seafood I think is unhealthier. Mostly because of the minute mercury levels build up.

It's worse if you eat swordfish and some other types of fish (I forgot off the top of my head).

My friend's dad also never eats at a seafood restaraunt simply because he never trusts how well the cook cooked his fish. Dunny why I said that, but I felt it was somewhat related.

I've heard about mercury too. But seafood doesn't taste like meat so this is why I put up with it. Besides, I've heard farm animalas are also being fed with bad stuff-- hormones and antibiotics mostly. So it's bad versus bad as far as I can see....

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by EGGO
My friend's dad also never eats at a seafood restaraunt simply because he never trusts how well the cook cooked his fish. Dunny why I said that, but I felt it was somewhat related.

Flat worms. There are dozens of different species of flat worm that infect fish. If the fish isn't properly cooked these will live in your digestive track. If these parasites are pregnant when you eat them they will bury their larvae in the walls of your intestines. When the young are old enough they will proceed to eat their way out. Your friend's father must know some marine biology. Listen to him!
Never, ever, EVER eat sushi.

And if you think it's sortta vegetarian to eat only fish because they are "lower" put on a scuba tank and spend half an hour on any healthy reef. There's nothing "lower" about them.

[tronvillain]

There are no "natural rights": animals simply have the rights we give them. I, like many people, given them the right to not be tortured or mistreated, but not the right to not be used as test subjects or killed for food. *shrugs* It is simply a matter of what bothers me enough to justify wanting to prevent something.

[Nowhere357]

I salute all vegetarians. :notworthy

Killing is part of life, and there is nothing immoral in eating any food that happens to be on your plate. But unnecessary killing is immoral. Humans are advancing towards the time when we no longer will need to kill millions of animals every day just to eat.

Vegatarians seem a little more evolved in this respect.

Myself, I eat meat and feel no shame and no pride for that.

[alek0]

Originally posted by pariahSS
Do you consider domestic house cats to be immoral? My kitty kills things all the time, and doesn't eat them.

Where do your morals/ethics come from?

No, as I said my cats eat meat. They would probably kill other creatures if they would go out. I'm sure there would be occasions when they would kill and wouldn't eat it. Are you trying to tell me that if cats do it, it is OK for humans to do it too? If cats and humans are the same, shouldn't we extend same rights to cats?
And if not, why use "other animals do it" to justify meat eating behavior? There are several differences between cats and humans.

1) Cats need meat to stay healthy, humans don't. For humans, there are advantages in being a vegetarian such as reduced risk of heart disease and siome cancers, while for cats there are no advantages and there can be significant harmful effects (lack of taurine can lead to blindness for example).

2) To my knowledge, cats have no ethics while humans do. Most humans accept a golden rule as a good starting point. From don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself to don't inflict unnecessary suffering to anyone capable of feeling pain is only a little step. However, to take that step iseveral things are needed

a) to recognize that animals have feelings and that they are not like programmed machines entirely ruled by instinct

b) to care sufficiently about not causing unnecessary suffering. Some don't care about not causing unnecessary suffering not even for other humans. People's consciences have different sensitivities (I'd recommend reading "What is a man" by Mark Twain, he explains this quite nicely).

If you think that there is anything wrong with principle of not causing unnecessary pain and suffering, please explain what exactly. I am not advocating that animals be granted right to vote (though I'm certain that my cats would certainy be smart enough not to vote for GWB which is more than can be said for a number of humans). I just think that it is wrong to cause pain and suffering if it can be avoided. Meat is not necessary for survival.

To clarify, I am not saying that everyone should be a vegetarian. I just don't see any sufficient reason to justify pain and suffering caused to animals. My conscience wouldn't let me get away with eating meat, though I understand that most people don't have this problem. However, I find reasoning behind their decision to be very puzzling. It is quite strange that people who think that they are better than other animals defend eating meat as natural behavior. If you are so much better than animals, shouldn't ethical principles take precendence over impulses of ape ancestors? It is also puzzling that people who would never eat a dog have no problem with eating pigs which can be quite as intelligent (and are kept as pets in some parts of the world).

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by alek0
It is also puzzling that people who would never eat a dog have no problem with eating pigs which can be quite as intelligent (and are kept as pets in some parts of the world).
Yes, there is cognitive dissonance here. We are raised and conditioned and cultured to accept the butchery one the one hand, while we have our pets and our Disney cartoons and the cute seal cubs (heh I typoed 'clubs') on the other hand.

I like to believe freethought makes this easier to see.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Hello,

I am a semi-vegetarian, meaning that I eat seafood. I'm not eating animal/bird meat because of health reasons. I think that meat is too heavy. When I ate a lot of it, I would get this physiological feeling that my body was working hard to digest it and I didn't like the feeling.

Well, since this is a morality forum, I'm wondering what people have to say about eating/not eating meat from a moral perspective. I know many vegetarians are such because they object to animal cruelty and take their eating habits very close to heart. Not something I entirely understand...

For something quick and clear, see:

http://ar.vegnews.org/

I also suggest that you do a search with your favorite search engine for "vegan" if you really want more information about why people believe it is wrong to eat animals.

Generally speaking, it is the same reasons why someone might regard it as wrong to eat severely retarded humans. (With genetic retardation, we could breed them for meat, keeping them in small pens, and use them for medical experiments.)

Usually, people (not vegetarians specifically, but people generally) are just arbitrary about what they eat (e.g., eating dogs vs. pigs, etc.), and pretend that they are rational in their choices, when really they have no justification for their actual position. And being so-called "freethinkers" usually makes no difference for such things.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by alek0
In my opinion, it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on sentient creatures.

Btw, my cats eat meat.

Surely it's unnecessary for you to have cats, hm?

[Theli]

Humans, it seems, suffer the most and the lower you go down the evolutionary pyramide, the less the creatures suffer.
That sounds abit weird to me, is the basis for morality a quest to prevent a particular chemical reaction?
The more complex, the more important to prevent?

And another thing I was wondering about, why isn't eating fish considered immoral for most vegetarians?

I myself am I vegetarian, because I find that eating something that was once living and breathing, just as I am, is gross. I also think that people are hypocrites. They drive past a farm and say, "Cute cows." not seeming to care that those cows will all be killed just so they can enjoy a hamburger.
I agree with the part about people being hypocrites. They are more eager to help or feel sympathy for an animal if it is cuddly and cute.
Personally I don't find eating burgers immoral, there is no downside to the killing of cows for food that is of my concern. Just like there is no reason for me to worry about other animals killing each other for food.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Theli
...

And another thing I was wondering about, why isn't eating fish considered immoral for most vegetarians?

...

Most vegetarians do regard it as wrong, and they all do not eat fish. Now, some people call themselves "vegetarians" and eat dead animals, but no one who eats dead animals (other than microbes and contaminants in their food) is a vegetarian. A "vegetarian" is, by definition, one who does not eat animals (see disclaimer above), so no vegetarian eats fish. Some meat eaters are clueless and call themselves "vegetarians" anyway.

[Chicken Girl]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Surely it's unnecessary for you to have cats, hm?

but even if the cats weren't living with alek0, they would still eat meat.

or do you mean that it's cruel to keep cats as pets?

[Graeme]

I don't eat beef.

Not so much for 'moral' reasons as much as environmental/sustainability ones.

Beef is an INCREDIBLY inefficient way to feed humans.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Theli
That sounds abit weird to me, is the basis for morality a quest to prevent a particular chemical reaction?
No, to reduce suffering. Don't confuse the map for the terrain. Suffering is not a chemical reaction.

And another thing I was wondering about, why isn't eating fish considered immoral for most vegetarians?
It's strange to me that it's considered moral to dispatch our prey humanely - yet we don't think twice about the fish suffocating slowly after being hooked out of the water. Fish have central nervous systems - of course they are suffering.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Chicken Girl
but even if the cats weren't living with alek0, they would still eat meat.

or do you mean that it's cruel to keep cats as pets?

How do you know those cats would even be alive if they weren't living with them?

I simply see an inherent hypocritical stance here. On the one hand, he doesn't eat meat because he doesn't want to contribute to the death of animals, yet then he supports two meat-eating animals himself, which contributes to the same thing.

[Theli]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Most vegetarians do regard it as wrong, and they all do not eat fish. Now, some people call themselves "vegetarians" and eat dead animals, but no one who eats dead animals (other than microbes and contaminants in their food) is a vegetarian. A "vegetarian" is, by definition, one who does not eat animals (see disclaimer above), so no vegetarian eats fish. Some meat eaters are clueless and call themselves "vegetarians" anyway.
I've heard alot of people calling themselfs vegetarians saying that they are totally ok with eating fish. Although they might not be "vegetarians" for ethical reasons.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
... Humans, it seems, suffer the most and the lower you go down the evolutionary pyramide, the less the creatures suffer.
...

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a human suffers more pain than most other animals with a central nervous system. If, for example, we threw a human and a pig into a large vat of boiling water, there is no reason to suppose that the one will suffer more than the other (unless one can be determined to live, and remain conscious, longer than the other). You have to go way "down" your pyramid to come to an animal that may not feel as much pain as a human.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Theli
I've heard alot of people calling themselfs vegetarians saying that they are totally ok with eating fish. Although they might not be "vegetarians" for ethical reasons.

So have I. But calling yourself something and being that something are two different things. I can call myself a lion, but it will not make me one.

To give a real example, I have heard many people claim to be Catholics, who also claim to regard the Pope as just another guy, and who also claim to disagree with many of the teachings of the Catholic Church (i.e., those things that distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism), though they agree with the basic outline, such as there being a God, and Jesus being important in some way. Such people are properly called "Protestants", if we mean these terms to in any way reflect actual belief as opposed to official membership on church records. (If we take it as meaning only official membership on church records, many atheists are "Catholics".)

[Theli]

Theli:
That sounds abit weird to me, is the basis for morality a quest to prevent a particular chemical reaction?
Nowhere357:
No, to reduce suffering. Don't confuse the map for the terrain. Suffering is not a chemical reaction.
Regardless of what it's biological nature, why should the suffering of a fish influence my actions?
There is no chance for any mutual social contact between me and a fish, so my sympathy for the fish would be as futile as sympathy for a computer or a car. Such sympathy seems forced.
Fish have central nervous systems - of course they are suffering.
Again, what is the purpose of concerning yourself over that? It sounds like useless information to me.

Should I also feel sympathy for my computer when I get an error message? :D

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Theli

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theli:
That sounds abit weird to me, is the basis for morality a quest to prevent a particular chemical reaction?
Nowhere357:
No, to reduce suffering. Don't confuse the map for the terrain. Suffering is not a chemical reaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Regardless of what it's biological nature, why should the suffering of a fish influence my actions?
There is no chance for any mutual social contact between me and a fish, so my sympathy for the fish would be as futile as sympathy for a computer or a car. Such sympathy seems forced.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish have central nervous systems - of course they are suffering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again, what is the purpose of concerning yourself over that? It sounds like useless information to me.

Should I also feel sympathy for my computer when I get an error message? :D

First of all, a computer or a car probably cannot feel pain. Second, if you follow your reason for not caring about the pain of a fish ("There is no chance for any mutual social contact between me and a fish..."), then you would not care about the suffering of most humans, either, as there is no chance that you will ever have mutual social contact with 5 or 6 billion people (or however many people there now are). So, are you inconsistent, or do you not care about the vast majority of human suffering in the world? Or did you not give us your real motives?

[Nowhere357]

Theli
Regardless of what it's biological nature, why should the suffering of a fish influence my actions?
Because it's suffering. If you're going to kill it, do so humanely.

There is no chance for any mutual social contact between me and a fish, so my sympathy for the fish would be as futile as sympathy for a computer or a car. Such sympathy seems forced.
Computers and cars don't suffer.

Why should the possibility of "mutual social contact" have anything to do with this?

Again, what is the purpose of concerning yourself over that? It sounds like useless information to me.
Most reasonable people consider the minimization of suffering to be a primary goal of morality.

Should I also feel sympathy for my computer when I get an error message?
Do you believe your computer is sentient? If so, then yes. But I think machines don't feel, so no sympathy is warranted.

[Magic Primate]

I think that factory farming and some traditional farming and slaughtering methods can be very cruel and certainly unnecessary, so I try to avoid such meat when possible.

Facing up to the truth of the suffering that meat-eating can cause makes me feel uncomfortable and it seems hypocritical to hide from that reality.

Yet I do eat non-farmed fish and occassionally other meat for the following reasons:

- I believe that ethical judgements are ultimately aesthetic and intuitive - I don't believe in categorical imperatives or absolute moral principles. I am free and every now and again I freely choose to be cruel.
- I'm not semi-vegetarian in order to act self-righteous or preach to others
- A certain amount of animal protien is needed for good health
- The vegetarian options on some menus (eg. cheese salad) are enough to make me want to top myself

[deano]

i will eat what i want,how i want and when i want.

i wont be moraly blackmailed into thinking that eating meat is somehow evil.

morality is for the meek,i am not afraid to be what i realy am- A MEAT EATER.

[Theli]

Because it's suffering. If you're going to kill it, do so humanely...
...Computers and cars don't suffer.
If the question is about sympathy, then I do feel sympathy for some animals and I do feel sympathy for some people, but I don't do this "because it's suffering".
Why should the possibility of "mutual social contact" have anything to do with this?
Glad you asked. The way I see it we are more prone to feel sympathy or care for beings we have some sort of social bond with. You are more likely to care about the wellbeing of a family member then for a random person you meet on the street.
Just as you are more likely to care for the wellbeing of one of your pets than some stray cat.
You are more likely to care for the wellbeing of a person who generally treats you nice, than a person who talks about you behind your back and treat you like shit.
Because you have a social bond with them. You might feel all the sympathy in the world for shark, but that won't stop him from eating you. :) Certainly no other animal feels sympathy for every single sentient being in the world, if they did the ecosystem wouldn't survive. And I'm pretty sure you don't either.
Most reasonable people consider the minimization of suffering to be a primary goal of morality.
Why should you minimilize suffering, it's a perfectly normal aspect on nature. I would say that morality exists to create social bonds between people (and in some cases animals), wich is crucial for our survival. Causing pain and suffering ofcourse breaks any possibility for those bonds to form. As for a fish, there is no possibility to begin with, thus it's a futile effort.
Do you believe your computer is sentient? If so, then yes. But I think machines don't feel, so no sympathy is warranted.
I'll save that topic for the philosophy forum. :D It's too big to include here.
I think most of this is based on some sort of anthropomorphism, too many disney movies with talking fish and mice.


Magic Primate...
- I believe that ethical judgements are ultimately aesthetic and intuitive - I don't believe in categorical imperatives or absolute moral principles. I am free and every now and again I freely choose to be cruel.
I agree, you are more likely to feel sympathy for a suffering animal if you can look it in the eyes, than you have for reading about it's death in a chart.

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by deano
i will eat what i want,how i want and when i want.

i wont be moraly blackmailed into thinking that eating meat is somehow evil.

morality is for the meek,i am not afraid to be what i realy am- A MEAT EATER.

Personally I have no problem with your attitude. You are honest with us and with yourself. And I wouldn't be one to chastise you for it. The only point I disagree on is that morality is about fear. It can be, but often (and nearly always in my case) is simply about empathy and compassion.

[Nowhere357]

deano
i will eat what i want,how i want and when i want.
Me too. I'm pretty sure it's exactly the same for vegetarians.

i wont be moraly blackmailed into thinking that eating meat is somehow evil.
You feel blackmailed? What does that mean? Maybe it's your conscience squeaking? :)

morality is for the meek
Actually, morality is for the moral. Has nothing to do with meekness at all.

i am not afraid to be what i realy am- A MEAT EATER.
Hehe. Whistling in the dark? Anyway, I bet you are an OMNIVORE.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Magic Primate
The vegetarian options on some menus (eg. cheese salad) are enough to make me want to top myself
Good post, nothing in there I care to disagree with.

I have to ask though - I understand your meaning (veggy options are often very limited) but What does "top myself" mean? Must be a British thing I guess. :cool:

[The Other Michael]

If cows and other food animals automagically died in the prime of life, would there be a problem with eating them then?

Is the problem eating animals, or killing animals to eat them?

And what if we genetically engineered the food animals to drop dead at the ideal moment? Are they still being killed? They would be true to their genotype in dying at an opportune (for us) time.

cheers,
Michael

[Nowhere357]

Theli
If the question is about sympathy, then I do feel sympathy for some animals and I do feel sympathy for some people, but I don't do this "because it's suffering".
What is your reason then for feeling sympathy?

I taught my kids to avoid causing unnecessary pain - don't pull the wings off of flies, for example. I could really not care less about the fly, so it not always is about sympathy.

Glad you asked. The way I see it we are more prone to feel sympathy or care for beings we have some sort of social bond with. You are more likely to care about the wellbeing of a family member then for a random person you meet on the street.
Just as you are more likely to care for the wellbeing of one of your pets than some stray cat. You are more likely to care for the wellbeing of a person who generally treats you nice, than a person who talks about you behind your back and treat you like shit.
All true. It's easy to ignore the suffering of the Nigerians, for example, since they are not in our face. I think it's odd that we kill millions of animals every day without much thought, but an incredible outcry ensues when video of mindless seal cub clubbing hits the 10 O'clock news. Maybe not so odd - if they aired some meat processing plant video footage on the news, I bet the vegetarian ranks would grow.

Because you have a social bond with them. You might feel all the sympathy in the world for shark, but that won't stop him from eating you.
Or me it, given the need and the opportunity. Btw, it's not reasonable to expect other animals to adhere to human morality. This in no way invalidates our morality. We are each responsible for our own behavior.

Certainly no other animal feels sympathy for every single sentient being in the world, if they did the ecosystem wouldn't survive. And I'm pretty sure you don't either.

Nature is a bitch, red in tooth and claw. Humans are rising above the muck, to our credit.

Yes I sympathize with all sentient creatures. But I know that killing is part of life. And minimizing suffering is part of morality.

Why should you minimilize suffering, it's a perfectly normal aspect on nature.
And it's normal for people with moral understanding to strive to minimize suffering. It's a question of how wide we cast our net (whoa, that was an interesting analogy :eek: ).

I would say that morality exists to create social bonds between people (and in some cases animals), wich is crucial for our survival. Causing pain and suffering ofcourse breaks any possibility for those bonds to form. As for a fish, there is no possibility to begin with, thus it's a futile effort.
From my pov, morality began by having concern for immediate family. It then evolved to include the tribe, then the country. Currently it's expanding to include all humans.
I think it also expands to include similar life forms, then dissimilar life forms.

Pyrrho adequately pointed out the flaw in your "social bond" reasoning, I think. "Then you would not care about the suffering of most humans, either." I guess it's human nature to elevate the dog we know over the people we don't (I know I do), but that doesn't make it right.

Anyway, I think this is an important point: I don't advocate humane fishing only for the benefit of the fish - it's for the benefit of the fisherman. Don't pull the wings off of flies, son. It damages your emotional growth, it numbs you to empathy. Empathy (and reason) are what gives us morality, and morality makes our society stronger.

Btw, catch-and-release is not humane - on the contrary, it's nothing more than torturing animals for fun. Just thought I'd throw that into the mix. :)

I'll save that topic for the philosophy forum.
Good idea. Very interesting topic, the nature of the mind is fascinating, but not very relavant here (unless anyone claims animals don't suffer).

I think most of this is based on some sort of anthropomorphism, too many disney movies with talking fish and mice.
In my case, definitely not true. I've already pointed out that I'm aware of the cognitive dissonance involved. Also I've stated that we benefit from morality, not only the creature we behave humanely towards. Also, the nature of nature is eat or be eaten. Or both.

Finally, one could claim that lack of empathy towards the fish may be based on anti-anthropomorphism. Too many kill-em-all movies. I won't make this claim, and you won't make yours, okay?

I agree, you are more likely to feel sympathy for a suffering animal if you can look it in the eyes, than you have for reading about it's death in a chart.
I agree also. Note that reason and empathy tell us that a death in a chart is exactly as real as looking death in the eyes. But it's (nearly?) impossible for a mortal finite human to grasp it all, so we focus on our immediate view. Which leads directly to vegetarianism - we can't prevent all suffering, but we CAN behave in a manner that reduces suffering within our narrow little worlds.

[Nowhere357]

The Other Michael
If cows and other food animals automagically died in the prime of life, would there be a problem with eating them then?
No.

Is the problem eating animals, or killing animals to eat them?
In my view, there is no problem with either. The problem is unnecessary killing.

For example, killing a buff to feed the tribe is fine. Killing a thousand buffs and harvesting only the tongues is immoral. It would be in modern times, anyway.

And what if we genetically engineered the food animals to drop dead at the ideal moment?
Automagically? :D

If we could do that, perhaps we could build some flesh-vats. Remove sentience from the equation, and still enjoy our steaks.

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Good post, nothing in there I care to disagree with.

I have to ask though - I understand your meaning (veggy options are often very limited) but What does "top myself" mean? Must be a British thing I guess. :cool:

Oh, I suppose it must be. It means to suffocate oneself by putting ones face in a ploughman's lunch, cheese pizza, pasta with unimaginative vegetable sauce or other preferred method of suicide.

[Theli]

What is your reason then for feeling sympathy?
That depends on what you mean by reason. If you mean why do we as humans feel sympathy then I think I answered that before. If you mean what my personal reasons for feeling sympathy is, then I must say I have no reasons to feel sympathy. I just feel sympathy for certain beings given the right situation, but there is no reasoning behind it on my part. If there was, the emotion would have been forced.
I think it's odd that we kill millions of animals every day without much thought, but an incredible outcry ensues when video of mindless seal cub clubbing hits the 10 O'clock news. Maybe not so odd - if they aired some meat processing plant video footage on the news, I bet the vegetarian ranks would grow.
I think it has to do with how we identify ourselfs with the animals in question. I bet if cows and pigs could talk there would be even more vegetarians. That's why I think morality is not based on an idea of non-suffering.
Btw, it's not reasonable to expect other animals to adhere to human morality. This in no way invalidates our morality. We are each responsible for our own behavior.
Many animals can have social relationships with humans (very simple, mind you), and they are often treated better by us because of it. I think morality and social contracts are mutual. If I started to treat my dog very badly, hitting her and not feeding her when she is hungry, I would probably sooner or later be bitten. About "inter-speices morality" (looking for a better term), it is not usual for an animal to feel sympathy for their soon-to-be food. It would seem unfair to hold us to a different standard.
Nature is a bitch, red in tooth and claw. Humans are rising above the muck, to our credit.
Personally I find nature quite beautiful, but that's becuase I'm a perv. And I don't think fighting against our own nature, as an intelligent mammal will work to our advantage. Ofcourse, we may drive cars and paint portraits but our link and dependance of nature still remains.
Yes I sympathize with all sentient creatures. But I know that killing is part of life. And minimizing suffering is part of morality.
Is this an emotion or a stance on morality?
And it's normal for people with moral understanding to strive to minimize suffering.
Why? I mean, if it's the wish of a moral person that no animal feels suffering, then shouldn't they try to stop lions from hunting zebras, and have all animals "get along"? To include all speices in the same moral group, sharing the same rules and rights is to deny one of the most fundamental rules of nature, animals kill and eat eachother.
From my pov, morality began by having concern for immediate family. It then evolved to include the tribe, then the country. Currently it's expanding to include all humans.
Including all humans in the same moral/social group, I think is the best we can do...
I think it also expands to include similar life forms, then dissimilar life forms.
...but we will never include all animals in the group. We can, and have included some animals to have as pets, and thus given them rights as being part of our social group, but the number of speices capable of this is very limited.
Pyrrho adequately pointed out the flaw in your "social bond" reasoning, I think. "Then you would not care about the suffering of most humans, either."
To answer that, I must say that I was far more sad when a friend of mine from school died two years ago than when I saw the deathcount following 9/11. But I aslo believe that we in general hold the value of human life higher than most animals as we have stronger emotional and social bonds with humans in general. Unfortunally, this can also split people into groups where you feel more concern for people who are in the same group as you (be it your sex, race or age). As you said earlier, we need to expand our social/moral groups. Same goes with dogs, I guess. We are more prone to feel sympathy for a dog that has died than a badger who has met the same end.
I don't advocate humane fishing only for the benefit of the fish - it's for the benefit of the fisherman. Don't pull the wings off of flies, son. It damages your emotional growth, it numbs you to empathy.
On that point I agree, a person who mistreat animals most probably mistreat people to.
Finally, one could claim that lack of empathy towards the fish may be based on anti-anthropomorphism.
I would think that anti-anthropomorphism only works on humans though, it's rather difficult to de-humanize a fish. :D
I'm trying to grasp the concept of anti-anthropomorphism right now... if anthropomorphism is applying human attributes to something not human, then anti-anthropomorphism must be applying non-human attributes to something that is human. I think you might be right about that claim, but it doesn't relate to the topic.

*sigh* my post may have gotten abit long and tedious at this point, but I don't have time to fix it.
;)

[Nowhere357]

Theli
That depends on what you mean by reason. If you mean why do we as humans feel sympathy then I think I answered that before.
Because of social bond, and not due to suffering. But even given the social bond, what occurs that you feel sympathy, other than that what which have bonded with is suffering? I assume you mean that you feel sympathy if something you have a social bond with is suffering.

If you mean what my personal reasons for feeling sympathy is, then I must say I have no reasons to feel sympathy. I just feel sympathy for certain beings given the right situation, but there is no reasoning behind it on my part. If there was, the emotion would have been forced.
Good point, our emotions are non-reasoning.

Our emotions are subject to reason only after the fact. But by considering our emotions, we can determine if that feeling makes sense, and we may affect the way they arise in the future. Also, new feelings can arise in the future simply by considering cold reasons right now!

I think it has to do with how we identify ourselfs with the animals in question. I bet if cows and pigs could talk there would be even more vegetarians. That's why I think morality is not based on an idea of non-suffering.
You're saying that morality is based on the social circle - I understand that. I even agree. But doesn't it then expand to include even those we will never be in a scocial circle with? Aren't we morally 'obligated' to try and live peaceably with other countries - and not just their diplomats?

Note: there's two things that expand here: the group, whose members are subject to the rules; and our awareness, which can include for example how we behave towards animals.

Many animals can have social relationships with humans (very simple, mind you), and they are often treated better by us because of it. I think morality and social contracts are mutual. If I started to treat my dog very badly, hitting her and not feeding her when she is hungry, I would probably sooner or later be bitten.
Yes I understand this.

Morality is a codified system that guides individual behavior within the group. Ultimately, that which guides the development of morality is our feelings of right and wrong. There are two points in contention here I think: whether the desire to minimize suffering is a prime moral feeling; and whether the morality can refer to things not in the group.

The first point is obvious to me. It's a major component of most morality systems, in one version or another.

The second point also seems obvious to me. It may be wrong to steal objects, for example, but objects aren't part of the group.

About "inter-speices morality" (looking for a better term), it is not usual for an animal to feel sympathy for their soon-to-be food. It would seem unfair to hold us to a different standard.
I disagree that it's unfair. Humans are on a different - higher - evolutionary level. Many hunting cultures honor and respect - and give thanks to - their prey. A good hunter dispatches the prey quickly. It's normal to feel sympathy for any suffering animal. That does not imply we shouldn't kill - only that we should kill humanely.

Personally I find nature quite beautiful, but that's becuase I'm a perv. And I don't think fighting against our own nature, as an intelligent mammal will work to our advantage. Ofcourse, we may drive cars and paint portraits but our link and dependance of nature still remains.
Nature is many things, including beautiful. Resisting our nature may be good or not - it depends. I think it's a good thing to resist our violent nature except in self-defense, for example.

Is this an emotion or a stance on morality?
Sympathy is an emotion. Minimizing suffering is a moral stance.

Why? I mean, if it's the wish of a moral person that no animal feels suffering, then shouldn't they try to stop lions from hunting zebras, and have all animals "get along"?
No. If the elimination of suffering were the goal, then logically we should exterminate all life. No life = no suffering.

The goal is to minimize suffering while affirming life. Nature does not necessarily disagree: prey animals enter anesthetic shock quickly, and predators dispatch quickly. There are exceptions of course - cats have an dark side, for example - but then we aren't responsible for that. We ARE responsible for our own behavior.

To include all speices in the same moral group, sharing the same rules and rights is to deny one of the most fundamental rules of nature, animals kill and eat eachother.
That's a basic rule all right, but there is no contradiction. We should not kill unless we need, and when we kill we should do so humanely - regardless of which species we kill. I'm talking about creatures with advanced nervous systems - I haven't evolved enough to care much about things like bugs. Good lord, the world of insects makes our world look like peace on earth. But even then, I don't torture them for fun.

Including all humans in the same moral/social group, I think is the best we can do...

I meant our moral awareness expands beyond the group. The group ultimately is all humans.

but we will never include all animals in the group. We can, and have included some animals to have as pets, and thus given them rights as being part of our social group, but the number of speices capable of this is very limited.
The group is the humans, their moral awareness expands to encompass the environment, including other animals. There is no reason not to include all animals. Even if we need to exterminate a species for some reason, we should do so humanely. Because we are moral, not necessarily so they don't suffer.

To answer that, I must say that I was far more sad when a friend of mine from school died two years ago than when I saw the deathcount following 9/11. But I aslo believe that we in general hold the value of human life higher than most animals as we have stronger emotional and social bonds with humans in general. Unfortunally, this can also split people into groups where you feel more concern for people who are in the same group as you (be it your sex, race or age). As you said earlier, we need to expand our social/moral groups. Same goes with dogs, I guess. We are more prone to feel sympathy for a dog that has died than a badger who has met the same end.
I agree with all this. There is confusion on "social group" however: morality applies to the behavior of group members - that includes behavior towards things not in the group.

On that point I agree, a person who mistreat animals most probably mistreat people to.
That's right, it's a reflection of moral awareness.

I would think that anti-anthropomorphism only works on humans though, it's rather difficult to de-humanize a fish.
I'm trying to grasp the concept of anti-anthropomorphism right now... if anthropomorphism is applying human attributes to something not human, then anti-anthropomorphism must be applying non-human attributes to something that is human. I think you might be right about that claim, but it doesn't relate to the topic.
Well, you put more thought into that than I did. I figured it wasn't quite parallell, but I thought it sounded cool. :)

The point was that my concern for animals has nothing to do with anthropomorphism as far as my reasoning goes. Emotionally I'm as vulnerable as anyone else. Have you read "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris (iirc)? It was pretty good with a bit of salt.

[xorbie]

I think I should start off this post by saying that I don't think people are "equal" in any sense (other than they should all be given certain rights). And I most certainly don't think that any non-self-aware animal should have, or does, have any rights whatsoever. Does a fish really have free will? If not it's suffering is quite frankly irrelevent. Kill every animal you want. I might not want to watch, because it makes me queasy. This is not morality, but rather it is aesthetics. Would I rather see some stupid ugly animal die than a cute stupid animal? Yes. Once again, this is aesthetics and not morality.

I also agree with what many people were saying, which is that people who are abusive to animals (any animals) often tend to be abusive to other people. However, this does not make the suffering in itself bad, IMO anyway.

Would I demand a life sentence for someone who killed my dog? Yes I would, but that goes back to the social bond argument many people are making. Once again, this has nothing to do with morality, which makes no statements such as "my friends is objectively more important than your friend."

As far as I know, cows and pigs are pretty unintelligent and not self-aware. The second you could prove that cows frequently questioned and understood their existence, I would not want to kill them.

[Magic Primate]

Apparently, pigs are about as intelligent as dogs.

Pain perception does not require much cognitive sophistication at all (relatively speaking). One doesn't have to be an intellectual to feel pain.

What does freewill have to do with it? I would seriously question whether humans had any real freewill anyway.

[xorbie]

If humans lack free will, all discussions are moot.

[Chicken Girl]

Originally posted by Magic Primate
Apparently, pigs are about as intelligent as dogs.

Pigs are *more* intelligent than dogs, actually. IIRC they're the 5th smartest animal on earth.

[Theli]

Nowhere357...
I disagree that it's unfair. Humans are on a different - higher - evolutionary level.
Yes, but the animals you say we are supposed to feel sympathy for clearly is not, isn't that the crux of the argument? If broadened sympathy and morality is to be an evolution we would expect that it would work to our advantage. But in this example it does not, we have nothing to gain from it. It should be regarded as a personal choice, with no moral obligations attached.
There are exceptions of course - cats have an dark side, for example - but then we aren't responsible for that.
If you are refering to playing with rats until they die, then that is a natural way for the cat to train it's reflexes. It doesn't mean that the cat is evil.
We ARE responsible for our own behavior.
Another wellchewed topic in the philosophy forum, but for the sake of the argument I will agree.
The group is the humans, their moral awareness expands to encompass the environment, including other animals. There is no reason not to include all animals.
Wouldn't you agree that morality is something mutual?


xorbie...
Would I rather see some stupid ugly animal die than a cute stupid animal? Yes. Once again, this is aesthetics and not morality.
I wonder if I put a cute puppy face on my computer, with big brown puppy eyes that looks at me sadly each time I angilly push reset, if I would come to feel sympathy for my computer. :D
Once again, this has nothing to do with morality, which makes no statements such as "my friends is objectively more important than your friend."
Is there something like objective worth? Never heard of it...
:confused:

[Nowhere357]

Theli
Yes, but the animals you say we are supposed to feel sympathy for clearly is not, isn't that the crux of the argument? If broadened sympathy and morality is to be an evolution we would expect that it would work to our advantage. But in this example it does not, we have nothing to gain from it. It should be regarded as a personal choice, with no moral obligations attached.
Non-action which promotes unnecessary suffering is a form of mistreatment, perhaps. If so, then the advantage to humanity should be clear, given that You've agreed "a person who mistreat animals most probably mistreat people to".

This then elevates the decision to minimize unnecessary suffering from personal opinion to moral obligation.

If you are refering to playing with rats until they die, then that is a natural way for the cat to train it's reflexes. It doesn't mean that the cat is evil.
I originally used the word "evil", then changed it to avoid confusion. :)

No, kittens train their reflexes by playing with the ball of yarn. Cats torture their prey because they like to - they find it enjoyable and fun, apparently. Normally and naturally, predators kill things because they are hungry. Afaik, there are very few exceptions to this rule. Cats have a dark side.

Wouldn't you agree that morality is something mutual?
Problematic. It's mutual between the members of the group, but morality can refer to or involve things not in the group.

Another wellchewed topic in the philosophy forum, but for the sake of the argument I will agree.
Heh. Only a free-will denier would exhibit reluctance here, I think. I suspect that if we follow our difference in opinion to the root divergence, we would find ourselves chewing this topic once again. I appreciate your decision to agree for the sake of argument. ;)

[Nowhere357]

xorbie
And I most certainly don't think that any non-self-aware animal should have, or does, have any rights whatsoever.
Sentience requires awareness, not necessarily self-awareness. We can demonstrate the former by a creature's ability to react to stimulus - how can we demonstrate the latter?

Saying that a creature has rights is problematic. Perhaps it's better to say that due to our morality, we have a responsibility to behave humanely towards sentient creatures. Morality after all refers to our behavior.

Does a fish really have free will?
I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Sentience requires awareness, not necessarily free will. But I would say that our mental abilities relate to our brain structures. Fish have all of the same basic brain structures we do. I think will is related to the the cortex (especially the frontal lobes) - fish have cortex. Therefore fish have will, just very little of it.

If not it's suffering is quite frankly irrelevent.
Subjective. Our suffering is irrelevant also - to the fish. I like to think we are a bit more evolved, what with our reason and empathy and all.

Kill every animal you want. I might not want to watch, because it makes me queasy. This is not morality, but rather it is aesthetics. Would I rather see some stupid ugly animal die than a cute stupid animal? Yes. Once again, this is aesthetics and not morality.
Aesthetics has nothing to do with behavior. Promoting unnecessary killing is behavior. By saying "kill anything you want" this includes killing for fun - that is an immoral stance.

However, this does not make the suffering in itself bad, IMO anyway.
Do you consider your own suffering to be value neutral?

Would I demand a life sentence for someone who killed my dog? Yes I would, but that goes back to the social bond argument many people are making. Once again, this has nothing to do with morality, which makes no statements such as "my friends is objectively more important than your friend."
You say kill what you want, then you say life in prison for killing your dog. You need to think about your position a little more, because that is inconsistent.

THEN you say this has nothing to do with morality. How can depriving people of their freedom not involve morality? Worse then inconsistent, this is just incoherant.

As far as I know, cows and pigs are pretty unintelligent and not self-aware. The second you could prove that cows frequently questioned and understood their existence, I would not want to kill them.
Cows and pigs and all animals with advanced nervous systems are all sentient; while self-aware does not imply frequently questioning and understanding of existence - it implies only an awareness of self - that is, awareness of their own existence. Self-awareness is not required to experience suffering.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Sentience requires awareness, not necessarily self-awareness. We can demonstrate the former by a creature's ability to react to stimulus - how can we demonstrate the latter?



If you use reaction to stimulus as the defining point, you include most plants. They certainly react to stimulus; growing towards light sources.



Saying that a creature has rights is problematic. Perhaps it's better to say that due to our morality, we have a responsibility to behave humanely towards sentient creatures. Morality after all refers to our behavior.



I don't see why behaving humanely towards creatures who cannot by definition respect my rights is a responsibility for me. I prefer to minimize the suffering I cause, but that is by my personal preference, not by responsibility.



Subjective. Our suffering is irrelevant also - to the fish. I like to think we are a bit more evolved, what with our reason and empathy and all.



Empathy is subjective as well. Not everyone has the same level of empathy towards the same things. Furthermore, its possible to feel empathy towards completely fictional things!



Aesthetics has nothing to do with behavior. Promoting unnecessary killing is behavior. By saying "kill anything you want" this includes killing for fun - that is an immoral stance.



Morals are relative, so any sweeping claim such as "X is immoral" is hardly convincing.

If you wish to consider the 'unnecessary' death of animals to be immoral, by all means do so. You'll have a hard time convincing people who don't share your moral code, of course. There's lots of people out there who think masturbation is immoral, but that doesn't mean it is objectively so.

[Theli]

Non-action which promotes unnecessary suffering is a form of mistreatment, perhaps. If so, then the advantage to humanity should be clear, given that You've agreed "a person who mistreat animals most probably mistreat people to".
Not in this topic. Unless you regard frying meatballs as animal abuse. Most acts against animals wich produce suffering is not of the pulling-the-wings-of-a-fly nature or enjoying suffering in others.
This then elevates the decision to minimize unnecessary suffering from personal opinion to moral obligation.
If that is the argument that will carry this act of personal opinion (not eating meat) to a moral obligation then it's a weak one. As such an obligation would be difficult to inforce (or indeed to follow), and will be at a great cost, the connection between breaking this obligation and a downside for society must be alot stronger.
As it is now, there is no reason strong enough to add such an obligation to our already stacked pile of moral responsibilites.
No, kittens train their reflexes by playing with the ball of yarn.
Same thing, they attack the ball of yarn it rolls away. They attack a mouse, it runs away. We don't know excacly how they percieve the mouse or the ball but their actions remain the same. And there were no balls of yarn before we invented it, but have has existed a long time.
Cats torture their prey because they like to - they find it enjoyable and fun, apparently.
playing with a ball of yarn is not fun? Why do you think animals play, why would they consider it fun? It's a way for them to train their abilities.
Normally and naturally, predators kill things because they are hungry.
And how are they suppose to do that without training? Normally an animal wouldn't bother to waste energy to kill an animal out of boredom, so ofcourse they expect food as a result.
It's mutual between the members of the group, but morality can refer to or involve things not in the group.
When there is an expectation for a future mutual social bond, yes. And also when there are consequences.
Theli:
Another wellchewed topic in the philosophy forum, but for the sake of the argument I will agree.

Nowhere357:
Heh. Only a free-will denier would exhibit reluctance here, I think. I suspect that if we follow our difference in opinion to the root divergence, we would find ourselves chewing this topic once again. I appreciate your decision to agree for the sake of argument.
Actually I'm still on the fence on this issue. The difference, as I see it is that without the traditional free will belief, people aren't the problem, it's the condition they are put into that is the problem.
Another time, another thread. :)



xorbie...
If humans lack free will, all discussions are moot.
It's not quite that serious. :D

[Nowhere357]

Valmorian
If you use reaction to stimulus as the defining point, you include most plants. They certainly react to stimulus; growing towards light sources.
Good point. We could even go further - a full balloon reacts to the stimulus of a needle poke. But this doesn't negate my point: we can detect awareness in a creature, but we have no way of detecting self-awareness. Except to ask, I guess.

I don't see why behaving humanely towards creatures who cannot by definition respect my rights is a responsibility for me. I prefer to minimize the suffering I cause, but that is by my personal preference, not by responsibility.
The same could be said for any moral understanding, I think (that it's preference, not responsibility). But I note even in current society, if we torture animals or allow a pet to suffer through neglect, we may very well be held responsible by our legal system.

Empathy is subjective as well. Not everyone has the same level of empathy towards the same things. Furthermore, its possible to feel empathy towards completely fictional things!
Yes indeed. One thing that comes to mind is John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) who would reportedly put out his campfire to protect the poor little bugs. And all the people who ache over the sacrifice of Christ! No one said this stuff is easy.

Morals are relative, so any sweeping claim such as "X is immoral" is hardly convincing.
On the other hand, lack of morals is also relative, and any sweeping claim that "x is not immoral" is also hardly convincing. ;)

If you wish to consider the 'unnecessary' death of animals to be immoral, by all means do so.
But that is not my position! Causing unnecessary death is immoral. Also, causing unnecessary suffering is immoral.

You'll have a hard time convincing people who don't share your moral code, of course.
On the other hand, the golden rule in some form is nearly universal, empathy for our pets is only half a step past that, and from there it's another half-step to empathy for other animals. Which proves nothing except that I'm not alone.

There's lots of people out there who think masturbation is immoral, but that doesn't mean it is objectively so.
The hell with them. Masturbation violates no-ones rights and causes no unnecessary suffering or death. Except for all those little kittens, but then they're evil anyway. :)

[brighid]

Beef is an INCREDIBLY inefficient way to feed humans.

How so?

All the alleged unhealthiness of red meat can be overcome, as well as the environmental and cruelty aspects of raising cows can be overcome by eating grass fed, free range beef. In fact such meat is incredibly nutritious, high in CLA, EFA's, low in saturated fat and chalked full of protein (and is a complete protein, unlike vegetable protein sources.)

Meats and milks from grass-fed animals also are nutritionally superior to grain-fed animal products. They contain far less total fat, less saturated fat, less omega-6 fat, and far more vitamins, minerals, and beneficial fats, including omega-3 fats (essential for cardiovascular and nervous system health) and conjugated linoleic acid (which stimulates fat metabolism, supports lean tissue health, and inhibits cancer cell development). Pasture-raised chickens, for example, produce meat and eggs high in vitamins, minerals, flavonoids, an
omega-3 fatty acids but low in undesirable omega-6 fatty acids, whereas chickens fed organic corn and soy meal are comparatively much lower in vitamins, minerals, flavonoids, and omega-3 fatty acids, but much higher in omega-6 fatty acids.

http://www.consciouschoice.com/food/grassfed1411.html

Brighid

[Nowhere357]

Theli
Not in this topic. Unless you regard frying meatballs as animal abuse. Most acts against animals wich produce suffering is not of the pulling-the-wings-of-a-fly nature or enjoying suffering in others.
I lost you. Meatballs aren't alive, and it's necessary to eat anyway. My point stands: Non-action which promotes unnecessary suffering is a form of mistreatment, perhaps. If so, then the advantage to humanity should be clear, given that you've agreed "a person who mistreat animals most probably mistreat people to".

I agree most "acts against animals" aren't of the torture for fun variety.

If that is the argument that will carry this act of personal opinion (not eating meat) to a moral obligation then it's a weak one.
Not based on your objection, so the point still stands (which btw is NOT "not eating meat"). Causing unnecessary suffering and allowing unnecessary suffering are different in degree, not kind.

As it is now, there is no reason strong enough to add such an obligation to our already stacked pile of moral responsibilites.
If we allow unnecessary suffering we retard emotional growth, which retards empathy, on which our morality is (partly) based. Therefore allowing unnecessary suffering is harmful to society.

Same thing, they attack the ball of yarn it rolls away. They attack a mouse, it runs away. We don't know excacly how they percieve the mouse or the ball but their actions remain the same. And there were no balls of yarn before we invented it, but have has existed a long time.
This doesn't oppose my point. It is unusual for a predator to kill unless hungry. The ball of yarn was symbolic, of course.

playing with a ball of yarn is not fun? Why do you think animals play, why would they consider it fun? It's a way for them to train their abilities.
Of course they play for fun, and yes their play serves to train them. :)

It's interesting to me that herd animals will typically graze peacefully next to already-satiated predators. If the predator is not hungry, there is nothing to fear.

And how are they suppose to do that without training? Normally an animal wouldn't bother to waste energy to kill an animal out of boredom, so ofcourse they expect food as a result.
That's my point - cats kill for fun. They have a dark side. Almost all cats do this. Dogs sometimes kill needlessy also, but in my experience this is nowhere near true of all dogs. I suspect some birds would kill cats and dogs if they could - they definitely have an bad attitude about them. The animal kingdom is strange, what can I say.

The difference, as I see it is that without the traditional free will belief, people aren't the problem, it's the condition they are put into that is the problem.
Anytime, anyplace. I love the topic. :)

[xorbie]

Nowhere357

Sentience requires awareness, not necessarily self-awareness. We can demonstrate the former by a creature's ability to react to stimulus - how can we demonstrate the latter?

I personally feel that there are qualitative and not just quantitative differences between certain species. From what I know, I would include the list of animals we should not harm as humans, great apes, dolphins and maybe a couple others. However, anything that does not understand what pain is beyond a basic instinct to avoid it, I don't care. It is aesthetically displeasing, but outside of that is morally neutral. However, I think aestheticism plays a huge role in ethics, so I don't consider it ethically neutral.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by brighid
How so?

All the alleged unhealthiness of red meat can be overcome, as well as the environmental and cruelty aspects of raising cows can be overcome by eating grass fed, free range beef. In fact such meat is incredibly nutritious, high in CLA, EFA's, low in saturated fat and chalked full of protein (and is a complete protein, unlike vegetable protein sources.)


I have no doubt that free range, grass fed beef is healthy and safe to eat. And I don't really have a problem with killing animals for food - it's called the 'food chain' and we're far from the only species that do it.

It's the huge amounts of land and food resources that must be diverted to the growing of these giant bovines that really gets me. You need acreage and feed in large amounts to grow beef, acreage and feed which could be MUCH better spent directly feeding humans.

[brighid]

It's the huge amounts of land and food resources that must be diverted to the growing of these giant bovines that really gets me. You need acreage and feed in large amounts to grow beef, acreage and feed which could be MUCH better spent directly feeding humans.

If you have the time please read the link I posted. It specifically addresses the agricultural issue and our acreage is not necessarily MUCH better spent directly feeding humans. The is good evidence that the "old ways" is much better for humans and the environment.

Other then the objection regarding killing animals and the morality surrounding that all other objections: environmental, cruelty, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, pollution and health issues are adequately addressed through raising ruminating
animals for their flesh, milk and eggs.

Some people suggest that animal products themselves are ecologically unsound. They argue that, for humans, a grain-based diet is more friendly to the earth; that raising food animals is a misuse of land; that enormous herds assist the process of global warming, groundwater loss and pollution, loss of species diversity, and depletion of fossil fuels.

This is certainly true when animals are fed a diet of grain. Grass feeding, however, does not impose row-cropping on the earth. Pasture land is naturally occurring, often in areas that are not suitable for food production. Only about one-third of the usable land on Earth (that is, about one-ninth of the total land mass) is suitable for growing crops. This amount is predicted to shrink, largely due to the fact that row-cropping almost invariably causes serious soil erosion. The remaining two-thirds of usable land supports growth only of plants that are not edible for humans, though they are edible for ruminants such as bison, cattle, deer, elk, zebra, eland, sheep, and goats.


http://www.consciouschoice.com/food/grassfed1411.html

Brighid

[pariah]

Originally posted by alek0
No, as I said my cats eat meat. They would probably kill other creatures if they would go out. I'm sure there would be occasions when they would kill and wouldn't eat it. Are you trying to tell me that if cats do it, it is OK for humans to do it too? If cats and humans are the same, shouldn't we extend same rights to cats?
And if not, why use "other animals do it" to justify meat eating behavior? There are several differences between cats and humans.


No. I just said that the cat killed it without intent to eat it. Therefore it is "needless" killing. Humans eat meat too.

Cats and humans are the same? Well, not in an a=a sort of way, but you can't say that one is "better" than the other.

So if one is not better than the other in some sort of way, why don't we extend the same rights to them? Because they don't make up human society, humans do.

[Beleg_Strongbow]

To me, it is about empathy. Would I like to have part of my body burned off at birth, live in a cage all my life, then killed and eaten? No? Then why on earth would I do that to someone else? Also, I find being an atheist helps in my decision to be a vegetarian. I believe that everything only gets one life, so why would I want to take that life from them?

[xorbie]

Because it is a useless life and not at all comparable to yours. And it's yummy.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by xorbie
Because it is a useless life and not at all comparable to yours. And it's yummy.

I am a unique individual. No one else's life is comparable to mine. Therefore, it must be all right for me to eat humans. I hear that they are yummy! They also are better for medical experiments than other animals, as they more closely resemble me.

[xorbie]

Ok, you want to play dummy. Have fun. I think after several other posts, I am pretty done with semantics for tonight. You want to pretend you haven't read all my comments about qualifiable difference between certain animals and others. Fine.

[Pain Paien]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I like to think we are a bit more evolved, what with our reason and empathy and all.


The phrase "more evolved" is meaningless in any biological sense. Since I'm aware you're most likely speaking in moral terms, however, I will ask you to please explain this further.

If, as you say, our human qualities make us superior to fish, I fail to see why we should feel empathy for them at all. For me, the concept of empathy extends only to those beings that can feel it themselves (most humans, for example). Pain without consciousness is meaningless to me on a moral level, and as I result I don't care about the pain food animals may have undergone, as I don't believe they possess consciousness. Whether or not they are conscious is a different discussion. For aesthetic reasons, however, I still believe pointless pain is undesireable.

[Pain Paien]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I am a unique individual. No one else's life is comparable to mine. Therefore, it must be all right for me to eat humans. I hear that they are yummy! They also are better for medical experiments than other animals, as they more closely resemble me.

Nonsense. The statement that no one else's life is comparable to yours is obviously untrue. If you were not presently communicating with other humans, your statements might be other than pointless inanity.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by xorbie
However, anything that does not understand what pain is beyond a basic instinct to avoid it, I don't care.
Human infants don't understand pain.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by xorbie
Because it is a useless life and not at all comparable to yours. And it's yummy.
Useless to who, and for what? Comparable in what way?

Not a good argument. No creature is in this world to provide you with usefulness. Fundies may claim that the Bible gives them dominion, but I don't see the Bible as a good moral guide.

[Nowhere357]

Pain Paien
The phrase "more evolved" is meaningless in any biological sense. Since I'm aware you're most likely speaking in moral terms, however, I will ask you to please explain this further.

? How is "more evolved" meaningless in any biological sense?

Anyway, I see no reason to limit empathy to things that say "thank you". That a fish has no free will doesn't affect whether it suffers or not; I see no reason to think suffering is less real just because the creature is less evolved.

If, as you say, our human qualities make us superior to fish, I fail to see why we should feel empathy for them at all. For me, the concept of empathy extends only to those beings that can feel it themselves (most humans, for example). Pain without consciousness is meaningless to me on a moral level, and as I result I don't care about the pain food animals may have undergone, as I don't believe they possess consciousness. Whether or not they are conscious is a different discussion. For aesthetic reasons, however, I still believe pointless pain is undesireable.
Our food animals have consciousness. They are sentient.

Merriam/Webster
Main Entry: con·scious·ness
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness>
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Pain Paien
Nonsense. The statement that no one else's life is comparable to yours is obviously untrue. If you were not presently communicating with other humans, your statements might be other than pointless inanity.
You missed the point. The value of life is relative. That a person sees no value in a life is irrelevant to whether we should cause needless suffering and death.

Otherwise, most violent acts can claim the same justification. Suicide bombers, for example, don't value the lives of their victims. Poachers don't value the lives of the endangered species.

[Theli]

Theli:
Not in this topic. Unless you regard frying meatballs as animal abuse.

Nowhere357:
If so, then the advantage to humanity should be clear, given that you've agreed "a person who mistreat animals most probably mistreat people to".
But would you say that eating meat (or frying meatballs) is a form of mistreatment against animals that would probably be followed by mistreatment of people?
If not, then the claim does not apply to all non-vegetariansm, it is not relevant to the topic.
Causing unnecessary suffering and allowing unnecessary suffering are different in degree, not kind.
But is it immoral? If there are no obligations involved then it can't be a question of morality.
If we allow unnecessary suffering we retard emotional growth, which retards empathy, on which our morality is (partly) based.
Back to the initial question, does buying and eating meat (or even owning a pigfarm) make us into immoral and anti-social people? If we follow the logic from your statement, this is what we end up with. So I ask you, have you observed this effect?
Therefore allowing unnecessary suffering is harmful to society.
Only if it ruins the possibility for social (or political) bonds to form between people. As with animals it doesn't, unless you want to include the entire eco-system in our society.
Theli:
They attack a mouse, it runs away. We don't know excacly how they percieve the mouse or the ball but their actions remain the same. And there were no balls of yarn before we invented it, but have has existed a long time.

Nowhere357:
This doesn't oppose my point. It is unusual for a predator to kill unless hungry.
But ofcourse it does. Cats don't only chase mice when they are really hungry, and they very seldom eat them. Why would you think that a cat would have a "dark" or "evil" side? What would be the point?
The value of life is relative. That a person sees no value in a life is irrelevant to whether we should cause needless suffering and death.
Why should we not cause needless suffering or death?
Once a good reason has been given, we can build from there.


:mad: AND WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH THIS SERVER?!?!? :mad:

[xorbie]

The baby argument suffers from the obvious flaw that the baby is human. Humans in general have the mental capacity to understand what pain is. Our minds are essentially infinitely more compex than a cow's or a pig's.

The lives of these animals have no meaning in any metaphysica sense.

[Nowhere357]

But would you say that eating meat (or frying meatballs) is a form of mistreatment against animals that would probably be followed by mistreatment of people?
If not, then the claim does not apply to all non-vegetariansm, it is not relevant to the topic.
I've already stated that there is nothing immoral about eating the food on our plates. I don't understand the last statement. I don't claim non-vegetarianism is wrong or immoral.

But is it immoral? If there are no obligations involved then it can't be a question of morality.
No more immoral than pulling the wings off of flies. Causing unnecessary suffering and allowing unnecessary suffering are different in degree not kind.

Back to the initial question, does buying and eating meat (or even owning a pigfarm) make us into immoral and anti-social people? If we follow the logic from your statement, this is what we end up with. So I ask you, have you observed this effect?
No. It's necessay for us to eat. It's a question of how wide you cast your net. There is no contradiction here.

Only if it ruins the possibility for social (or political) bonds to form between people. As with animals it doesn't, unless you want to include the entire eco-system in our society.
We've been through this already (all my comments here seem to be reprises). Many people think it's immoral to steal, yet we don't form social (or political) bonds with objects. Also, we may have no social (or political) bonds with an indiginous tribe in the rain forest yet that does not indicate that it's not immoral to kill 'em off. You are confusing the social group bond with the scope of moral awareness.

But ofcourse it does. Cats don't only chase mice when they are really hungry, and they very seldom eat them. Why would you think that a cat would have a "dark" or "evil" side? What would be the point?
They torture and kill for fun. They are under no obligation to follow human morality, so their behavior is not immoral. And humans are under no obligation to reduce our morality to the lowest common denominator.

Why should we not cause needless suffering or death?
Asked and answered. The exact same reason we should teach our kids to not pull the wings off of flies on the one hand - it hurts our empathy which hurts our morality which hurts society on the one hand; because empathy and reason tell us the suffering and death is real and as undesirable as our own suffering and death is on the other hand. Umm, short answer - because we are moral.

Once a good reason has been given, we can build from there.
Given that nearly every comment I make in this post is a repeat, I wonder if we're not talking past each other.

[Nowhere357]

xorbie
The baby argument suffers from the obvious flaw that the baby is human. Humans in general have the mental capacity to understand what pain is. Our minds are essentially infinitely more compex than a cow's or a pig's.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your support for causing unnecessary suffering and death of lower animals is "However, anything that does not understand what pain is beyond a basic instinct to avoid it, I don't care."

Human infants do not understand pain, so you reason as stated is flawed, obviously. Reformulate your reason to account for that inconsistency and try again, I think.

The lives of these animals have no meaning in any metaphysica sense.
"Meaning" is relative and subjective, and I don't know what you mean by "metaphysical".

What reason is there to think that a creature with an advanced nervous system (the same set of brain structures that we have) does not value it's life just as we value ours? Nature seems to disagree - creatures normally behave as if they value their lives.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Nowhere357

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xorbie
The baby argument suffers from the obvious flaw that the baby is human. Humans in general have the mental capacity to understand what pain is. Our minds are essentially infinitely more compex than a cow's or a pig's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your support for causing unnecessary suffering and death of lower animals is "However, anything that does not understand what pain is beyond a basic instinct to avoid it, I don't care."

Human infants do not understand pain, so you reason as stated is flawed, obviously. Reformulate your reason to account for that inconsistency and try again, I think.

...

If you search for past threads on this subject, you will find it common for those attempting to defend the practice of brutalizing animals to present some "reason" for their position, but if they really followed it, they would not object to brutalizing infant humans and severely mentally retarded humans. The simple fact is, they arbitrarily regard all humans as exempt from their claims. This has nothing whatsoever to do with reason, but they generally do not wish to admit this, which is why they come up with something that seems to be a reason to justify their prejudices. They don't want to admit that they are cruel and inhuman, probably not even to themselves. So they come up with what appears to be initially plausible as a reason for cruelty to animals, but really it fails to select all of the animals they want, or it also selects animals (some humans) that they don't want selected. Which proves that they do not really apply the principles that they claim to apply. Frankly, I have never seen anything from anyone at this site, or any other, that gives a reasonable justification for eating non-human animals, but not eating infants and/or severely mentally retarded humans. (Sometimes, someone mentions disease as a reason for not eating humans, but this fails for a couple of reasons: First, the humans for food could be tested for disease, and raised apart from the general population, and secondly, the eating of non-human animals has caused the spread of serious diseases anyway.)

The real reason why people object to eating infants and severely retarded humans, but not non-human animals, is because of prejudice. Rationality has nothing to do with it.

[Yangja Isuko]

i eat meat because it tastes great. i can't live without eating a daily dose of meat. i really don't get the morality argument either, what about all the habitats that are destroyed by creating farmland to feed all the vegetarians?

i don't care how cute and fuzzy my food once was. some salt quickly does away with any feelings of remorse.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Yangja Isuko
i can't live without eating a daily dose of meat. i really don't get the morality argument either, what about all the habitats that are destroyed by creating farmland to feed all the vegetarians?
How does our need and right to eat justify UNNECESSARY suffering and death? Do you see anything wrong with torturing animals for fun?

i eat meat because it tastes great. i don't care how cute and fuzzy my food once was. some salt quickly does away with any feelings of remorse.
People shoot heroin because it feels good. Therefore it's okay to shoot heroin?

I've never heard of morality based on flavor. If the food tastes bad, does your remorse return?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
The real reason why people object to eating infants and severely retarded humans, but not non-human animals, is because of prejudice. Rationality has nothing to do with it.
Yes. I have a slightly different take on it, though. Empathy for infants and retarded people is a good thing - that it doesn't extend to animals simply delineates the extent of that persons moral awareness. Just as some people can think deeper thoughts, so too do some people feel deeper morality.

I'll wager a smiley that no-one can prove this statement false: vegetarians as a group commit fewer crimes of violence against people than the rest of us.

[Theli]

I have shortened down the reply considerably, it was begining to split into several topics.
Theli:
Why should we not cause needless suffering or death?

Nowhere357:
Asked and answered. The exact same reason we should teach our kids to not pull the wings off of flies on the one hand - it hurts our empathy which hurts our morality which hurts society on the one hand;
Do you have any evidence, or reasoning to show that suffering caused by us unto animals is of the pulling-the-wings-of-flies type, because that is the only type of animal abuse that is argued by your statement to have a negative effect on how we function in a society. And even with the extremely small amount of suffering inflicted on animals by us just for the sake of making the animals suffer, not all of that will result in violence between humans. Most suffering we cause animals are indeliberate side-effects of goals set by our needs, such as pullution by cars and factories or by our need to eat meat (you may respond to this by saying that eating meat is not a necessity, I have responded to this counterargument below).
because empathy and reason tell us the suffering and death is real and as undesirable as our own suffering and death is on the other hand.
Is there a reason why other people should share your empathy? Clearly, my level of empathy doesn't prevent me from eating meat, and it doesn't make me cry my eyes out thinking about animals suffering, yet in the same time it doesn't make me a violent person. So, why should I (or anyone else) share your empathy?
Umm, short answer - because we are moral.
There are more than one code of morality, you will have to argue for yours.
Yangja Isuko:
i can't live without eating a daily dose of meat. i really don't get the morality argument either, what about all the habitats that are destroyed by creating farmland to feed all the vegetarians?

Nowhere357:
How does our need and right to eat justify UNNECESSARY suffering and death? Do you see anything wrong with torturing animals for fun?
Define necessity. Would you agree that there is no such thing as objective necessity?
It is necessary for animals to die in order for us to eat meat.
It is necessary for animals to suffer for us to industrialize society (not as means to an end, but as a consequence).
Is it not necessary for us to eat meat in order to survive.
It is not necessary for us to survive.
To establish necessity, you must first name a goal.
People shoot heroin because it feels good. Therefore it's okay to shoot heroin?
Are you comparing meat to heroin now? If heroin didn't turn you into a wreck, then yes shooting heroin would be okay.
Does eating meat turn you into a wreck.
Empathy for infants and retarded people is a good thing - that it doesn't extend to animals simply delineates the extent of that persons moral awareness. Just as some people can think deeper thoughts, so too do some people feel deeper morality.
Then it's not about the animals anymore, it's about the depth of our own morality. Vanity, if you ask me.

[Theli]

If eating meat is immoral because there is an alternative tha