(Poll) Ethics of eating meat

[The Kernel]

A bit of background:

I recently decided to become a full-blown vegetarian, mostly prompted to do so after reading about the bluefin tuna and realizing that it was mostly my love of seafood that kept me from making this lifestyle change in the first place. So rather than take no action after realizing that my lifestyle choice was contributing to mankind's habitual overfishing, I decided to do something about it.

I never really thought that eating meat was inherently wrong, but now that I've given it up for ecological reasons I'm starting to wonder if that belief wasn't just motivated by inertia and my self-interest around wanting to continue eating meat. For the life of me I can't find a good reason why eating meat ISN'T wrong--our bodies are perfectly capable of surviving on a vegetarian diet (in fact all the data suggests that it is in fact much healthier to do so) and there doesn't seem to be any justification for eating meat aside from "it tastes good".

I'm not quite ready to start bombing meat packing plants just yet, but I wanted to figure out if anyone can suggest some counter-arguments for my conclusion that killing animals for the purpose of consumption doesn't make any logical sense and is immoral. I'll start by my responses to a few common ones.

Argument #1: Animals kill other animals in nature for food.

My reaction: I thought the whole point of civilization was that we were supposed to be better than our animalistic tendencies. So this argument seems silly to me.

Argument #2: Animals aren't people and don't deserve the same rights as we do.

My reaction: I certainly think people come first, but why does this mean that animals shouldn't get a certain basic level of inherent rights? We already have laws against animal torture...doesn't it follow that animals have the right not to be killed purely for the pleasure of humans? And let's face it: consumption of animal meat is NOT about survival, it is purely about pleasure.

EDIT: Added a poll.

[Lagmonster]

Argument #1: Animals kill other animals in nature for food.

My reaction: I thought the whole point of civilization was that we were supposed to be better than our animalistic tendencies. So this argument seems silly to me.

When you form arguments involving what we should eat, remember that you have the luxury of going to the grocery store and helping yourself to a diet of your choosing. I doubt you'd go somewhere that crops have failed due to famine or pests, and explain to them that they can't have a steak because they're supposed to be better than that. I don't really think anyone is in a position to talk about the dignity of human civilization until we're sure we're getting enough non-meat food to everyone who's hungry.

Argument #2: Animals aren't people and don't deserve the same rights as we do.

My reaction: I certainly think people come first, but why does this mean that animals shouldn't get a certain basic level of inherent rights? We already have laws against animal torture...doesn't it follow that animals have the right not to be killed purely for the pleasure of humans? And let's face it: consumption of animal meat is NOT about survival, it is purely about pleasure.

I tend to see ethics as a guide for dealing with other people, not animals. What is almost certainly unethical is unnecessary cruelty towards animals, and in that context, 'unnecessary' is pretty fucking broad. Especially when you're talking about worms as opposed to, say, chimps.

However, your final statement is just plain bullshit. There was an article on SDnet not that long ago about native hunters in Africa who still hunt primates by hand for food. That IS arguably about survival. Your problem, again, is that you have a point of view which is limited to being affluent enough to have the luxury of turning down food. Frankly, I'm in agreement about the bluefin; that's a species we're fucking up because of the aesthetics of taste, not because people will go hungry if we don't eat them all.

[The Kernel]

When you form arguments involving what we should eat, remember that you have the luxury of going to the grocery store and helping yourself to a diet of your choosing. I doubt you'd go somewhere that crops have failed due to famine or pests, and explain to them that they can't have a steak because they're supposed to be better than that. I don't really think anyone is in a position to talk about the dignity of human civilization until we're sure we're getting enough non-meat food to everyone who's hungry.

Considering you need to feed animals anywhere between 5-10x as much protein as you get back from eating them, I'm not sure this is the most logical argument to make. The amount of grain produced in the US alone that is used for animal feed could feed 1.3 billion people on an all vegetarian diet.

BTW, as I'm sure you know, most people in the developing world are vegetarians not because of ethical or environmental reasons but purely because of cost. Meat is a luxury item in these nations.

I tend to see ethics as a guide for dealing with other people, not animals. What is almost certainly unethical is unnecessary cruelty towards animals, and in that context, 'unnecessary' is pretty fucking broad. Especially when you're talking about worms as opposed to, say, chimps.

However, your final statement is just plain bullshit. There was an article on SDnet not that long ago about native hunters in Africa who still hunt primates by hand for food. That IS arguably about survival. Your problem, again, is that you have a point of view which is limited to being affluent enough to have the luxury of turning down food. Frankly, I'm in agreement about the bluefin; that's a species we're fucking up because of the aesthetics of taste, not because people will go hungry if we don't eat them all.

Oh please, do you really think I'm arguing that we should start preventing starving Africans from opportunistically hunting game?

The fact of the matter is that we breed and raise animals in the developing world purely for the purpose of slaughter for meat. This is obviously a wasteful process as we have to feed the animals an overwhelming amount of perfectly good grains to do so that could just as easily be consumed directly. So putting aside hunting wild animals, would you agree then that raising animals for slaughter doesn't make any sense?

[Lagmonster]

Considering you need to feed animals anywhere between 5-10x as much protein as you get back from eating them, I'm not sure this is the most logical argument to make. The amount of grain produced in the US alone that is used for animal feed could feed 1.3 billion people on an all vegetarian diet.

You argued that humans should not eat meat because "we're better than animals". I pointed out that if your crops fail, but you happen to see a rabbit, you kill the motherfucking rabbit and you eat it. You don't tell yourself that you're 'better' than some other lesser omnivore that will eat the rabbit without thinking twice. It's just a poor argument to have made when, say, the issue of conservation of energy makes much more sense.

BTW, as I'm sure you know, most people in the developing world are vegetarians not because of ethical or environmental reasons but purely because of cost. Meat is a luxury item in these nations.

How do you know you haven't just proven that some people are poor enough to have a weak diet? Without looking at the population in terms of susceptibility to, perhaps, deficiency diseases, you may not be getting the whole picture.

Oh please, do you really think I'm arguing that we should start preventing starving Africans from opportunistically hunting game?

I'm sorry, but "consumption of animal meat is NOT about survival, it is purely about pleasure" didn't leave any room for exceptions. It was, frankly, a blanket statement and I felt it needed to be challenged.

So putting aside hunting wild animals, would you agree then that raising animals for slaughter doesn't make any sense?

I think what is misunderstood is the line between food and excess. It's entirely possible for a family to keep a small herd of goat in healthy, comfortable environments, treat them well, protect them from disease and predators, and then eventually use the meat of the older animals to supplement your diet. That's 'raising animals for slaughter', but I'd find it pretty fucking hard to argue with that version of it.

[Hamstray]

The fact of the matter is that we breed and raise animals in the developing world purely for the purpose of slaughter for meat. This is obviously a wasteful process as we have to feed the animals an overwhelming amount of perfectly good grains to do so that could just as easily be consumed directly. So putting aside hunting wild animals, would you agree then that raising animals for slaughter doesn't make any sense?

The human digestive system isn't capable of that. Afaik livestock animals have quite a high utilisation ratio, need some stats for comparison though.

[The Kernel]

You argued that humans should not eat meat because "we're better than animals". I pointed out that if your crops fail, but you happen to see a rabbit, you kill the motherfucking rabbit and you eat it. You don't tell yourself that you're 'better' than some other lesser omnivore that will eat the rabbit without thinking twice. It's just a poor argument to have made when, say, the issue of conservation of energy makes much more sense.

I argued that in a civilized society we have no reason to eat animals. Given that the crop levels needed to sustain humans is far less than that needed to produce animal feed and raise animals to feed humans, there would be no need to consume animals unless civilization has broken down.

How do you know you haven't just proven that some people are poor enough to have a weak diet? Without looking at the population in terms of susceptibility to, perhaps, deficiency diseases, you may not be getting the whole picture.

Are you suggesting that humans are incapable of creating a balanced diet without meat? Because that's clearly not the case.

I'm sorry, but "consumption of animal meat is NOT about survival, it is purely about pleasure" didn't leave any room for exceptions. It was, frankly, a blanket statement and I felt it needed to be challenged.

There is no contradiction here. If I said a civilized society should not require humans committing acts of violence against each other would you point out that in Somalia you might need to hurt or kill someone just to survive and consider that a valid rebuttal?

I think what is misunderstood is the line between food and excess. It's entirely possible for a family to keep a small herd of goat in healthy, comfortable environments, treat them well, protect them from disease and predators, and then eventually use the meat of the older animals to supplement your diet. That's 'raising animals for slaughter', but I'd find it pretty fucking hard to argue with that version of it.

Why? I'm not seeing the justification for that when your example family could be feeding themselves many times over on the food they would be allocating to their animals being bred. It's an inefficient and wasteful process.

[Spekio]

I won't even begin to discuss the actual science of us humans being omnivores who not only want, but NEED, to eat meat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore

My reaction: I thought the whole point of civilization was that we were supposed to be better than our animalistic tendencies. So this argument seems silly to me.

(I am apologizing for the eventual spelling/grammatical mistakes I make and/or if I can't properly express my opinion in English due to the fact it is not my first language. Thank you.)

Your first reaction: Society means that we are supposed to be better than our animalistic instincs.Now, I am assuming you are reffering to State(from latin status) in the meaning of a "...permaent situation of cohesistance and connected to a political society", as first defined by Machiavelli' "The Prince", since you are talking in a context of a modern society and it's consumption of meat. Now there are three main points of view on the origin of the State:

a) The first say that there always has been a State, since the genesis of man we were always on social groups,that has power and authority to determine the actions of all the members of said group. I. e, the State is integral to the existence of the human being. Defenders of this point of view are:
Wilhelm Koppers
Eduard Meyer

b)The second is that State is a political society that achieved very specifc characteristics. They go as far as saying that the concept of State isn't valid to every historic moment, but came to existence when the concept of "Sovereignty" showed up on the 17h Century,when in 1648 The Peace of Westphalia ocurred.

c) And finnaly, the ones wich admit that the human society did well for a while without the need for a state, but at some point due to various reasons the need for a state came up. This point of view is shared by the vast majority,who claim that there was no exact point in history where the State came into fruition, but at many different places at different times, according to the concrete needs of that particular group.

Now, the third one is gennerally accepted as the correct one. Then, we have the theories as how the state came to be:

A)The Natural Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

And

B) The Social Contract - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

You see? The origin of the modern society is far more complicated than "being better than or animalistic urges".
Now let's skip over some States and analyze the Modern State, in order to understand why eating meat isn't immoral in any way. Now, I am just use Dalmo de Abreu Dallari's annalisys in order to keep this short. He compiles the Modern State as basically having four characteristics, Sovereignty, Territory, its People and Purpose(Free translation here, someone help me out if I am wrong,please.)
Its Purpose is basically "...seeking the common good of a certain people situated in a certain territory"(free translation again).
Now, you don't see the deffinition including supressing animal urges. The State understand that we are animals, and as such, insticts are part of our behavior, and that behavior might be anti-social at some times. Hell, as wikipedia puts it "Law is a system of rules, usually enforced through a set of institutions. It shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a primary social mediator of relations between people". The State basically uses the law as a subistitute for the force in conflicts.
I. e, We are not supposed to be better than our animalistic instincts, we are supposed to live in scoiety despite the negative ones.

Now, I am inclinned to say that the common good implies satisfacting needs, and again, being omnivores, we have the need to eat meat. It is NOT for pleasure that we do this, we evolved this way. So you, my friend, is the silly one here.

[The Kernel]

I won't even begin to discuss the actual science of us humans being omnivores who not only want, but NEED, to eat meat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore

Need? How do we NEED to eat meat? We may have evolved as omnivores but it is hardly necessary for us to survive and in fact studies show that humans who practice a vegetarian diet are healthier and live longer than those that do not. This might be a correlation rather than a cause, but it certainly shoots down any notion that humans need meat to survive.

Now, I am inclinned to say that the common good implies satisfacting needs, and again, being omnivores, we have the need to eat meat. It is NOT for pleasure that we do this, we evolved this way. So you, my friend, is the silly one here.

Your entire premise is based on a false assumption. Vegetarianism in humans is at worst just as healthy as being omnivorous and at best much healthier (Vegetarians experience dramatically lower risk of heart disease and cancer for example). So in order for any of the rest of your drivel to even apply, you'd have to prove that this need exists in the first place which is clearly false.

[Spekio]

Argument #2: Animals aren't people and don't deserve the same rights as we do.

My reaction: I certainly think people come first, but why does this mean that animals shouldn't get a certain basic level of inherent rights? We already have laws against animal torture...doesn't it follow that animals have the right not to be killed purely for the pleasure of humans? And let's face it: consumption of animal meat is NOT about survival, it is purely about pleasure.

I don't know in the United States or whatever country you come from, but here in Brazil, the Law undestands that animals(and plants) are not titular's to any rights, such as the right to live, etc. Only Humans receive those. But the law protects nature (CF/88, art. 225 & law 5.197/67) in virtue of men. The Fauna, such as the Flora have "functions"(or a certain purpose, free translation again) that they have to perform to the benfit of mankind, such as an "Ecological Function", "Cientific function", "Recreational Function",etc.

Of note is that if forbids cruelty, and let me quote Celso Antonio Pacheco Filho's "Curso de Direito Ambiental"(Introduction to Environmental Law)

"... the constitution chose to instead protect men, instead of the animal. That is beacuse the Human Being doesn't like to see an animal suffer due to cruelty inflicted on it. Our Mental Health demands so."

So in here, animals are protected to the common good of the human being, and defines cruelty as:

"...subject an animal to evil beyond necessary."

So, as stated before, we are omnivores, and we need to eat meat. If we need to do so, it isn't cruelty, of course, by our legal definitions. You second reaction is a moot point here in Brazil.

[The Kernel]

I don't give a flying shit about legalese you moron. This is a question about whether eating animals is morally justifiable, not legal.

[Sarevok]

Oh please. Personal morality is unique to each person. I can claim the color yellow is unethical ? What can you do ? Legal defination is what matters in collectively deciding what is right and wrong morally.

[Spekio]

I won't even begin to discuss the actual science of us humans being omnivores who not only want, but NEED, to eat meat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore

Need? How do we NEED to eat meat? We may have evolved as omnivores but it is hardly necessary for us to survive and in fact studies show that humans who practice a vegetarian diet are healthier and live longer than those that do not. This might be a correlation rather than a cause, but it certainly shoots down any notion that humans need meat to survive.

Now, I am inclinned to say that the common good implies satisfacting needs, and again, being omnivores, we have the need to eat meat. It is NOT for pleasure that we do this, we evolved this way. So you, my friend, is the silly one here.

Your entire premise is based on a false assumption. Vegetarianism in humans is at worst just as healthy as being omnivorous and at best much healthier (Vegetarians experience dramatically lower risk of heart disease and cancer for example). So in order for any of the rest of your drivel to even apply, you'd have to prove that this need exists in the first place which is clearly false.

First of all, let me show you this:




Those are meat-free products that try to resemble meat. Now, as this site puts it, we, as omnivores are basically feed on whathever is avaliable, but as rational animals, we are NOT required to eat animal protein.

The same article notes that our ancestors were hunter-gatheres, and when domestication of food sources began, it began with both plants and animals.

He called us rational animals, but a great deal of our behavior is dictated by instinct(I know it isn't the correct word, but Psychologists do recognize that humans do have biological predispositions or behaviors that are easy to learn due to biological wiring, for example walking and talking, etc) and only so much by reason. And I am by no means an expert, but meat eating is part of the hard-wiring of our brains, so that even if you biologially do not need to eat meat, psychologically you do. I find that tofurkey and similars are merelly an externation of such desire.

I also read somewhere, and have no idea if it is the truth, that meat-eating was partially responsible for our species abillity to pursue other interests other than food gathering, due to the energy it provided.

[Spekio]

I don't give a flying shit about legalese you moron. This is a question about whether eating animals is morally justifiable, not legal.

As much as you hate it, you put the "animal rights" on the discussion. Said animal rights derive from the law.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

You should know better than to post an argument like that here. By the same reasoning blacks were unworthy of ethical consideration until the Emancipation because it wasn't the law. While laws may codify what the current political consensus is on ethics, they don't define ethics, especially since the majority of voters or politicians could hardly be considered expert ethicists.

[Solauren]

Let me put it to you this way; (Using Cows as an example)

Do you really think that if the world stopped eating meat, that Farmers would keep the cows for the hell out it?

Nope.

At that point, almost every meat cow on a commerical farm would be shot, and turned into fertilizer to grow the plants the world is eating instead.

At least with eating meat, cows get to live. It's a simple life, a boring life (to humans anyway), but at least it's a life.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Need? How do we NEED to eat meat? We may have evolved as omnivores but it is hardly necessary for us to survive and in fact studies show that humans who practice a vegetarian diet are healthier and live longer than those that do not. This might be a correlation rather than a cause, but it certainly shoots down any notion that humans need meat to survive.

Please note I am not trying to get involved in the ethical side of this argument at the moment, I am only posting this as a sort of minor clarification point.

A vegetarian diet is about as healthy as an omnivorous diet, but there are some important nutrients that vegetarians are generally required to get via dietary supplements (notably vitamin B12, iron, and some fatty acids). The thing is, people who eat meat don't refuse to eat vegetables, and thus are generally getting all of the nutrients their body requires. Whereas vegetarians, unless they take certain supplements, are not.

The problem with a lot of studies of vegetarians versus non-vegetarians is cultural. The fact is, most people, regardless of what "diet plan" they pursue, are idiots when it comes to lifestyle choices. Just as there are people who only eat fast food and get hideously fat, there are those vegans that end up starving their children to death based on vague ethical concerns.

As for longevity, all sorts of studies show different results. This study, which looked at people in the US, UK, and Germany. Regular meat eaters and vegans, which represent the extreme of each lifestyle, had the highest mortality rates. Vegetarians and occasional meat eaters were roughly the same, and fish eaters were slightly healthier than either. There are some problems with this study, admittedly, but the results of it seem to generally make sense. Basically, as long as you eat smart, it doesn't matter form a health standpoint whether you eat meat or not.

[Spekio]

You should know better than to post an argument like that here. By the same reasoning blacks were unworthy of ethical consideration until the Emancipation because it wasn't the law. While laws may codify what the current political consensus is on ethics, they don't define ethics, especially since the majority of voters or politicians could hardly be considered expert ethicists.

Wow, morals change over time? I am shocked.

If you had read my response, you would understand that while the law does not grant rights to animals, it does protect them from cruelty. In the future that might change, sure, but right now, as you said, the law codify what the current political consensus is on ethics, I. e, eating meat is ethical by today's standarts.

But my point is: He is equaling "animal rights"(like i said, there is no such thing in brazillian law) to human rights, when they are not the same, and equaling eating meat as torture, when clearly is a human need, wich is nonsense.

[The Kernel]

If you had read my response, you would understand that while the law does not grant rights to animals, it does protect them from cruelty. In the future that might change, sure, but right now, as you said, the law codify what the current political consensus is on ethics, I. e, eating meat is ethical by today's standarts.

Wow...that's the best example of circular logic I've ever seen. Give yourself a pat on the back.

But my point is: He is equaling "animal rights"(like i said, there is no such thing in brazillian law) to human rights, when they are not the same, and equaling eating meat as torture, when clearly is a human need, wich is nonsense.

Don't strawman my position fuckhead. I never equated eating meat with torture, I said that if animals qualify as having the rights to be free from torture then we are defacto admitting that they have some rights and from that it becomes difficult to justify killing them for human convenience. Survival would be a legitimate argument but since animal meat isn't necessary for human survival this is a moot point.

In other words, it is inconsistent morally to grant them the right to be free from torture and cruel treatment, but then slaughter them for food.

[The Kernel]

Please note I am not trying to get involved in the ethical side of this argument at the moment, I am only posting this as a sort of minor clarification point.

A vegetarian diet is about as healthy as an omnivorous diet, but there are some important nutrients that vegetarians are generally required to get via dietary supplements (notably vitamin B12, iron, and some fatty acids). The thing is, people who eat meat don't refuse to eat vegetables, and thus are generally getting all of the nutrients their body requires. Whereas vegetarians, unless they take certain supplements, are not.

The problem with a lot of studies of vegetarians versus non-vegetarians is cultural. The fact is, most people, regardless of what "diet plan" they pursue, are idiots when it comes to lifestyle choices. Just as there are people who only eat fast food and get hideously fat, there are those vegans that end up starving their children to death based on vague ethical concerns.

As for longevity, all sorts of studies show different results. This study, which looked at people in the US, UK, and Germany. Regular meat eaters and vegans, which represent the extreme of each lifestyle, had the highest mortality rates. Vegetarians and occasional meat eaters were roughly the same, and fish eaters were slightly healthier than either. There are some problems with this study, admittedly, but the results of it seem to generally make sense. Basically, as long as you eat smart, it doesn't matter form a health standpoint whether you eat meat or not.

I'm willing to concede it is a wash health wise which actually suits the argument just fine since it shoots down the notion that we need to consume animals for survival. The fact that people have to put more work into eating a vegetarian diet doesn't change anything since my supposition is still that we eat meat purely for pleasure and convenience rather than out of necessity.

If we are willing to admit that we don't need to eat animals for survival in a developed country, I'm not sure what moral justification can be given that it is okay to eat them unless you come from the position that animals have no rights as living beings. Logically if we are willing to protect them from pain and suffering their lives must have value and as such we cannot justify killing them for mere convenience.

[Spekio]

Wow...that's the best example of circular logic I've ever seen. Give yourself a pat on the back.

I fail to see how that is circular logic.
According to Miriam-webster online:

ethical
Main Entry: eth·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ˈe-thi-kəl\
Variant(s): also eth·ic \-thik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English etik, from Latin ethicus, from Greek ēthikos, from ēthos character — more at sib
Date: 1588

1 : of or relating to ethics <ethical theories>
2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval <ethical judgments>
3 : conforming to accepted standards of conduct <ethical behavior>
4 of a drug : restricted to sale only on a doctor's prescription

Society, as a whole, defines the moral. Therefore, if society approves the eating of meat, it is ethical. Of course, society changes, so does moral,so does the law. We even have a term for laws that are unjust, "Lacuna Axiológica".

Don't strawman my position fuckhead. I never equated eating meat with torture, I said that if animals qualify as having the rights to be free from torture then we are defacto admitting that they have some rights and from that it becomes difficult to justify killing them for human convenience. Survival would be a legitimate argument but since animal meat isn't necessary for human survival this is a moot point.

In other words, it is inconsistent morally to grant them the right to be free from torture and cruel treatment, but then slaughter them for food.

Oh right, you said that killing them to eat them is the same as a national passtime. I stand corrected. And I (and apparently, the country where I live) don't find it morally inconsistent, nor right granting to protect animals from unecessary evils, and eat them, wich is a NECESSARY evil, if you find it evil at all.

Also, I believe pretecting animals from cruelty = they have rights is the Slippery Slope Fallacy.

[aieeegrunt]

Oh look, a newly converted vegetarian is now going to preach at everybody. Wow, there's something I've never seen before. You know what, I find this kind of crap so annoying that I'm going to go out of my way to eat as many different animals as possible this week.

Hey, in my fridge I have salmon, bacon and bison! Look at that, I even have a theme now. Everything I eat today is going to end in -on.

[wolveraptor]

My reaction: I thought the whole point of civilization was that we were supposed to be better than our animalistic tendencies. So this argument seems silly to me.

This is something that needs to be challenged strongly, at the risk of the starting a tangent. Is there any way to demonstrate this conclusively?

The point of civilized living, it seems to me, is to support greater human population densities. It doesn't necessarily make us happier or healthier (indeed, you could argue that it does the opposite), it's simply a response to overcrowding.

Considering you need to feed animals anywhere between 5-10x as much protein as you get back from eating them, I'm not sure this is the most logical argument to make. The amount of grain produced in the US alone that is used for animal feed could feed 1.3 billion people on an all vegetarian diet.

This seems totally disingenuous, people can't survive on a diet of animal feed. We require a much more diverse selection of foods than is usually accessible in a settled agrarian cash-crop society.

[Broomstick]

Considering you need to feed animals anywhere between 5-10x as much protein as you get back from eating them, I'm not sure this is the most logical argument to make. The amount of grain produced in the US alone that is used for animal feed could feed 1.3 billion people on an all vegetarian diet.

That's assuming you feed the animals food that people could eat. In fact, cattle and other ruminants (like sheep and goats) can make use of plants that humans are physically unable to process, such as grass. If we raised food animals on grasses - as, historically, was the case until relatively recently - then they wouldn't be eating potential human food.

BTW, as I'm sure you know, most people in the developing world are vegetarians not because of ethical or environmental reasons but purely because of cost. Meat is a luxury item in these nations.

How are you defining "vegetarian"? Most poor people who are vegetarians are not, in fact, vegans (there are a few exceptions) and most will utilize animal-derived products given a chance.

Very few people go their entire lives eating NO animal bits whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is that we breed and raise animals in the developing world purely for the purpose of slaughter for meat. This is obviously a wasteful process as we have to feed the animals an overwhelming amount of perfectly good grains to do so that could just as easily be consumed directly.

Which is foolish, in that ruminants don't need to eat grains. That doesn't mean eating meat is inherently unethical.

So putting aside hunting wild animals, would you agree then that raising animals for slaughter doesn't make any sense?

Well, as I am allergic to most legumes getting enough protein from purely animal sources would be problematic for me. There are also people who have gluten intolerance, which means many grains are off limits for them entirely, including meat substitutes made from those grains. I would argue that for such people eating meat may, in fact, be necessary to maintain health in which case it would be an ethical choice.

It would be dreadfully unfair to maintain that I should be vegetarian if that would be a long, lingering decline in health, or, worse yet, an abrupt and painful end due to anaphylactic shock.

[The Kernel]

Oh look, a newly converted vegetarian is now going to preach at everybody. Wow, there's something I've never seen before. You know what, I find this kind of crap so annoying that I'm going to go out of my way to eat as many different animals as possible this week.

Hey, in my fridge I have salmon, bacon and bison! Look at that, I even have a theme now. Everything I eat today is going to end in -on.

Oh piss off, I don't give two shits that you eat meat. I raised the question for the purpose of spirited discussion, not because I object to your lifestyle.

That's assuming you feed the animals food that people could eat. In fact, cattle and other ruminants (like sheep and goats) can make use of plants that humans are physically unable to process, such as grass. If we raised food animals on grasses - as, historically, was the case until relatively recently - then they wouldn't be eating potential human food.

Of course the question is could you use the grazing land for cultivation of things that humans CAN eat. Furthermore the disparity is so large (something like 10-to-1 best case) that clearly it is cheaper to cultivate plants. Heck, just looking at the prices of grains vs. meat can tell you that.

How are you defining "vegetarian"? Most poor people who are vegetarians are not, in fact, vegans (there are a few exceptions) and most will utilize animal-derived products given a chance.

Very few people go their entire lives eating NO animal bits whatsoever.

Indeed, I was bringing it up to shoot down the dietary argument. Poor people in third world nations are probably not doing it for ethical reasons (although there are exceptions such as India).

Which is foolish, in that ruminants don't need to eat grains. That doesn't mean eating meat is inherently unethical.

But then I ask again: why ISN'T in inherently unethical? This isn't a rhetorical question, I honestly want an explanation that makes sense.

Well, as I am allergic to most legumes getting enough protein from purely animal sources would be problematic for me. There are also people who have gluten intolerance, which means many grains are off limits for them entirely, including meat substitutes made from those grains. I would argue that for such people eating meat may, in fact, be necessary to maintain health in which case it would be an ethical choice.

It would be dreadfully unfair to maintain that I should be vegetarian if that would be a long, lingering decline in health, or, worse yet, an abrupt and painful end due to anaphylactic shock.

First argument I've heard in this thread that makes any sort of sense, thank you for that.

Still since this is something of an edge case it doesn't really change the underlying question, as the vast majority of people do NOT have such dietary restrictions.

[Broomstick]

That's assuming you feed the animals food that people could eat. In fact, cattle and other ruminants (like sheep and goats) can make use of plants that humans are physically unable to process, such as grass. If we raised food animals on grasses - as, historically, was the case until relatively recently - then they wouldn't be eating potential human food.

Of course the question is could you use the grazing land for cultivation of things that humans CAN eat. Furthermore the disparity is so large (something like 10-to-1 best case) that clearly it is cheaper to cultivate plants. Heck, just looking at the prices of grains vs. meat can tell you that.

Actually, no, not all grazing land is suitable for growing people food, particularly land usable by small ruminants like goats. Modern technology does make more marginal land usable for human food crops, but only with extensive irrigation, fertilizer, and power input.

Of course, most people could eat considerably less meat than they do... despite having a medical reason to continue to eat meat I eat considerably less than the average American, and will go days without eating animal flesh without any adverse impact in my health (in fact, I'm probably healthier for eating less meat and more fruit and vegetables).

Which is foolish, in that ruminants don't need to eat grains. That doesn't mean eating meat is inherently unethical.

But then I ask again: why ISN'T in inherently unethical? This isn't a rhetorical question, I honestly want an explanation that makes sense.

I understand. However, I maintain the fact that ruminants (among others) eat food that is unusable to humans is irrelevant to whether or not it's ethical to eat them - as opposed to pigs, which aren't ruminants are largely eat things that people could eat, so raising pigs means feeding food to animals instead of people.

Is it unethical to eat termites? They eat stuff useless to us as food, and they are edible - there are societies where they are sought out as a delicacy. I would say that if eating animals in unethical then you have to include things like termites. If it's not unethical to eat insects when it is unethical to eat cows then the person making the claim needs to explain the distinction.

Well, as I am allergic to most legumes getting enough protein from purely animal sources would be problematic for me. There are also people who have gluten intolerance, which means many grains are off limits for them entirely, including meat substitutes made from those grains. I would argue that for such people eating meat may, in fact, be necessary to maintain health in which case it would be an ethical choice.

It would be dreadfully unfair to maintain that I should be vegetarian if that would be a long, lingering decline in health, or, worse yet, an abrupt and painful end due to anaphylactic shock.

First argument I've heard in this thread that makes any sort of sense, thank you for that.

Still since this is something of an edge case it doesn't really change the underlying question, as the vast majority of people do NOT have such dietary restrictions.[/quote]
Since approximately 3-5% of the population in developed nations have food allergies that adds up to a lot of people over time. Gluten intolerance is yet another matter, and no one knows the world-wide incidence of it, but some European populations have an incidence as high as 1 in 150 or so. Again, it adds up to substantial numbers of people. Other such disorders include favism (seen in Mediterranean populations), lactose intolerance (which is actually more common than adult lactose tolerance), and no doubt others.

While we know that most people seem able to exist on a vegetarian diet, the world has never really tried to go truly vegetarian. There might be a substantial minority of people who really are healthier consuming some animal products. If that is the case, then there is a case for eating animal flesh (or other animal products) to be ethical. If that were the case, though, there might an equally valid argument for the average person to eat less meat than is the current practice in developed countries.