Vegans and the morality of meat

[Dark Sider]

A series of logical proofs against meat eating:

The logical proof proving meat-eating is immoral -
if I believe that unnecessary suffering is wrong, including the suffering of animals
and meat is not a necessity
and meat causes suffering
then eating meat is immoral

The proof proving that a vegetarian diet is moral
if animals suffer while harvesting of grains
and grains are a necessity
but I have no control over the methods of production
then eating grains is not considered immoral

I do not see a difference. Animals slaughtered for meat serve that purpose but may be 'unnecessary.' Animals slaughtered for grains serve no purpose but is 'necessary.' Where is the moral argument if any?

[Zero]

The entire argument rests on the assumption that the suffering of animals is wrong, and it also makes the assertion that meat is not a necessity. I don't really think either of these are true, so that whole thing comes off as bullshit to me. Just reject the initial assumption that the suffering of animals matters. After all, morality is based on the interactions of people.

[Darth Wong]

The entire argument rests on the assumption that the suffering of animals is wrong, and it also makes the assertion that meat is not a necessity. I don't really think either of these are true, so that whole thing comes off as bullshit to me. Just reject the initial assumption that the suffering of animals matters. After all, morality is based on the interactions of people.

You don't think there's anything bad at all about the suffering of animals? Why not?

[Dark Sider]

The entire argument rests on the assumption that the suffering of animals is wrong, and it also makes the assertion that meat is not a necessity. I don't really think either of these are true, so that whole thing comes off as bullshit to me. Just reject the initial assumption that the suffering of animals matters. After all, morality is based on the interactions of people.

Evidence to support the suffering of animals in regards to meat will be the typical Vegan/Vegetarian arguments to show that their diet is just as healthy or healthier and the suffering of animals is reduced or ideally, nil.

[Zero]

Evidence to support the suffering of animals in regards to meat will be the typical Vegan/Vegetarian arguments to show that their diet is just as healthy or healthier and the suffering of animals is reduced or ideally, nil.

Yeah, but none of that matters if you don't really think the suffering of animals matters too much.

You don't think there's anything bad at all about the suffering of animals? Why not?

In this case, it's because the animals were bred to be slaughtered anyways, so that people could eat the meat. Why should morality be extended to animals when it was designed to govern interactions between humans?

I aint saying, of course, that it's all well and good to go around shooting dogs in the face, but I'd say that the harm done here is mostly to the dog's owner, in terms of moral consideration. Why should we include more then humans in moral considerations?

[drachefly]

You've never had a pet, have you?

[Zero]

You've never had a pet, have you?

I have a dog. His name's Smokey. I love the mutt. That doesn't mean I think he has any place in morality. Morality is still there to govern actions of humans, so I don't see why it ought to apply to non-humans. Isn't asking me if I have pets a kind of appeal to emotion? An appeal to my gut?

[Darth Wong]

You don't think there's anything bad at all about the suffering of animals? Why not?

In this case, it's because the animals were bred to be slaughtered anyways, so that people could eat the meat.

So your argument is that something which was bred to be slaughtered has no feelings that matter? Why?

Why should morality be extended to animals when it was designed to govern interactions between humans?

Humans are animals. The thing which distinguishes us is our intelligence, so the more intelligent an animal is, the more sympathy we should have for it.

Why should we include more then humans in moral considerations?

We don't, as long as our moral code does not incorporate sympathy in any way. Yours doesn't?

[drachefly]

You bet it was an appeal to emotion. Emotion strongly pertains to morality.

[Zero]

So your argument is that something which was bred to be slaughtered has no feelings that matter? Why?

For what reason should its feelings matter? It isn't human, and its designated purpose by us is to be slaughtered and eaten. Humans are, after all, the only thing that can really provide purpose or meaning to anything by percieving it as such, so if a cow's designated purpose is to be my cheeseburger, what reason do I have to worry about it?

We don't, as long as our moral code does not incorporate sympathy in any way. Yours doesn't?

I don't really know yet, honestly. I'm 17. I don't know jack shit. Currently, no.

[Korvan]

Years ago, my dog ran into the street and was hit by a car. He suffered a broken back and massive internal injuries, but was still alive. My dad brought him to the vet where it was determined that nothing could be done and my dog was put down.

It cost about an hour of my dad's time and 300 bucks for all that, but according to Zero132132 it was all a waste and the smart thing to do was to just leave my dog to die in the street as it's suffering doesn't matter.

But we spent the time and paid the money to aleviate the suffering of an animl that was doomed to die anyway. Why? Sympathy and compassion on one hand and responsibility on the other. It was our responsibility to take care of our dog, especially in one final act of caring to stop his suffering.

In regards to the original "proof", meat may not be nessary, but neither are grains. Humans survived long before the cultivation of grains happened.

I do think we take our meat for granted and most of the time there is little acknowledgement that it was once part of a living, feeling creature. Instead of giving thanks to fictitious gods, we should be giving thanks to the creatures that died so that we may live.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

For what reason should its feelings matter? It isn't human, and its designated purpose by us is to be slaughtered and eaten. Humans are, after all, the only thing that can really provide purpose or meaning to anything by percieving it as such, so if a cow's designated purpose is to be my cheeseburger, what reason do I have to worry about it?

This is such a horrible case of Is/Ought fallacy, if I am not reading you incorrectly. You are trying to say since it isn't human and it is bred to be eaten, it must be moral that be so. That doesn't follow ethically. The fact that something is the case has no bearing on the morality of said case.

If we bred humans to be eaten, that would also be their purpouse. Does that make it moral by that fact alone to eat it? Say those people have no other "purpouse."

I do not see a difference. Animals slaughtered for meat serve that purpose but may be 'unnecessary.' Animals slaughtered for grains serve no purpose but is 'necessary.' Where is the moral argument if any?

Well, all moral arguments take into consideration that you want to create a working, healthy society, not excluding humans. I am not sure whether meat is necessary, but I have seen a lot of literature from medical organizations that claim a largely vegetable, low/no meat diet is, when properly administered, healtheir than a meat-based one. I wish I really knew, so I could say better.

But also, the difference might lie in the quanity of animals and type of animals killed in farming veggies compared to deliberately breeding animals for furs, meat, etc. I heard that a lot of mice and smaller mammals get absorbed into the farm process. Perhaps if it be true that meat is unnecessary, I would think vegetables are necessary and that if we were to make it so no animals are killed in the processes, you would eventually be killing or injuring many humans by scaling down or changing the methods. It has to stop at some point, even though animals should have some moral consideration.

[LadyTevar]

My brother got a 7pt buck yesterday. It was in an area of massive deer over-population, so the loss of one buck will not be missed (nor will the second buck he hopes to take, or the doe).

I'm going to be asking him for some of the meat once it's butchered, and cooking it for Nit and another friend of ours. ($5 says Nit refuses to eat Bambi)

[DPDarkPrimus]

Why isn't meat necessary? It contains plenty of things that one can't get without supplements.

If they're going to say that supplements render meat unnecessary, then we can apply the claim to vegatables as well.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think they mean that most of what you need can come from non-meat foods, and that some would come from supplements, yes. Perhaps they feel that the taking of some supplements is worth preventing the killings of other things. Maybe that is their line of thinking.

I don't think we could live on only suppliments. Wouldn't that wreak havoc with our digestive system?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: How much can you not get without suppliments? They and some medical organizations make it sound like it's only a few things.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Why isn't meat necessary? It contains plenty of things that one can't get without supplements.

If they're going to say that supplements render meat unnecessary, then we can apply the claim to vegatables as well.

A good point given how industry works today, you could easily remove plants and animals and used bacteria to grow the needed nutrients you want. Besides, they are neither plant nor animal and so are a more moral option than even veganism. If you don't start thinking bacteria have higher mental functions or something.

Edit: How much can you not get without suppliments? They and some medical organizations make it sound like it's only a few things.

Geneered bacteria can produce anything you want and eat anything they want. In fact, I guarantee you've eaten or used some product today that was made in a vat the size of most flat blocks filled with bacteria and a flow of nutrients.

[FedRebel]

The logical proof proving meat-eating is immoral

This'll be rich

if I believe that unnecessary suffering is wrong, including the suffering of animals

The suffering of animals is wrong, however the alternative is that we pump the animals full of drugs before killing them, which in of itself raises more issues

and meat is not a necessity

Our digestive tract, ability to see in color, and brain size seem to conflict with that view

And as noted before meat can provide us with nutrients plant life can't

and meat causes suffering

Alot of things cause suffering

And humans are omnivores, our diet needs to consist of a ptoper balance of meat and plant life, in order to get some of the nutrients we need we have to eat meat. As a result we need to aquire meat to digest in some manner.


If people are so concerning about slaughter houses, way don't they find more 'humane' means of aquiring the meat we need, instead of trying to burn slaughter houses down to the ground

then eating meat is immoral

Then war is immoral
Then religon is immoral

They both are not neccesary, have caused suffering, and have done immoral things



Now if you excuse me I have to buy a twenty pound turkey

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Geneered bacteria can produce anything you want and eat anything they want. In fact, I guarantee you've eaten or used some product today that was made in a vat the size of most flat blocks filled with bacteria and a flow of nutrients.

That's cool, actually. I wonder how many people actually know that; I bet people probably would be against it or something.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If you drink a soft drink that has aspartame in, that came from a vat bred bacterium. That's the only one example.

As for animal suffering, in the UK, that is rare if existent in agriculture. Free range means animals up until slaughter are happy as clams and even slaughtering, while gruesome, is quick and painless. A bolt to the back of a bovine brain is better than, say, kosher methods.

[Frank Hipper]

Geneered bacteria can produce anything you want and eat anything they want. In fact, I guarantee you've eaten or used some product today that was made in a vat the size of most flat blocks filled with bacteria and a flow of nutrients.

That's cool, actually. I wonder how many people actually know that; I bet people probably would be against it or something.

But for a vat of geneered E-Coli bacteria pumping out insulin with the Lilly logo on it, I'd be dead years ago.

[Adrian Laguna]

Preventing animal suffering is very important to me. Paticularly animals bred to be slaughtered, trust me on this, happy animals taste better.

[Blackwing]

I have this whole mouth full of teeth intended for the devouring of meat... let noone tell me I shouldn't. It would be against my nature.

[Surlethe]

The proof proving that a vegetarian diet is moral
if animals suffer while harvesting of grains
and grains are a necessity
but I have no control over the methods of production
then eating grains is not considered immoral

Am I reading something wrong here, or does this directly contradict the deduction above it? I don't have any control over the method of production of meat, so eating meat shouldn't be considered immoral -- by that logic -- either.

[CoyoteNature]

We tend to anthro our pets, assigning them similar qualities to our own.

They might have, might not; never seen a dog give rats poop about the moral qualms of eating meat. Nor for that matter any other animal, including those ones closest to our own such as chimps or possibly dolphins.

Although I do feel guilty about eating pork, ever since I found out they were almost as smart or smarter then a dog.

You can have a good diet being a vegetarian, just reqires more work; meat is just so much easier.

Actually as long as it's balanced, there's nothing innately unhealthy about either diet.

Get more gas with the Veggie thing though.


Interesting tidbit:

An interesting Native American thing was to thank the spirit of the animal for giving up its life, seemed interesting morally at least.

Of course they thought the animal was a real thing, as opposed a common Westerner thing that humans are the only real thing.

Me I feel very grateful to the cow for giving me burgers, even if it is a stupid thing.