(Poll) Ethics of eating meat

[Darth Wong]

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.

Don't tell me you subscribe to this "sheer quantity of life is always good" mentality. Maybe we should start mass-cultivating beetles just because they will "get to live" now, eh?

[Darth Wong]

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.

No, your point was legalism, which is only relevant to a moral argument if you believe that morality flows from law. If it doesn't, then you cannot dispute the validity of animal rights by quoting the law.

[Singular Intellect]

I don't expect nor need a shark or bear to feel bad if it decides to have a human for lunch, so why should I feel bad about eating a burger? Am I supposed to apologize for being one of the apex predator species on the planet?

I easily grant as a society we consume vastly more meat products than we need to, and I think we need to have serious consideration for humanely raising species for slaughter. That said, I'm not going to apologize for how we're evolved.

Go cry to nature about the brutal and vicious aspects of living organisms; the fact that people have the luxury of whining about the ethics of what and how we eat just further reflects the spoiled nature of our society.

Toss a vegan into a situation where their need to eat can only be practically sated by killing and consuming other organisms, and I'd like to see how long their holier than thou bullshit attitude lasts.

If you chose to be a vegan, good for you. Just don't try and pretend that choice is anything but a luxury that the success of the human species as a whole grants you.

[Darth Wong]

I don't expect nor need a shark or bear to feel bad if it decides to have a human for lunch, so why should I feel bad about eating a burger? Am I supposed to apologize for being one of the apex predator species on the planet?

That's a stupid argument because sharks and bears do not have any concept of ethics or morality. We do. Our great intelligence granted us the power to ponder such things, just as it granted us the power to wipe out entire species almost at a whim, with mechanized harvesting techniques. We should not exercise the latter without remembering the former.

You want to have your cake and eat it too: enjoy the lifestyle afforded to us by our unprecedented mechanized power over other animals, while rejecting the idea that our great power comes with any kind of special responsibility that would not be shared by a shark or a bear.

[Singular Intellect]

I don't expect nor need a shark or bear to feel bad if it decides to have a human for lunch, so why should I feel bad about eating a burger? Am I supposed to apologize for being one of the apex predator species on the planet?

That's a stupid argument because sharks and bears do not have any concept of ethics or morality. We do. Our great intelligence granted us the power to ponder such things, just as it granted us the power to wipe out entire species almost at a whim, with mechanized harvesting techniques. We should not exercise the latter without remembering the former.

You want to have your cake and eat it too: enjoy the lifestyle afforded to us by our unprecedented mechanized power over other animals, while rejecting the idea that our great power comes with any kind of special responsibility that would not be shared by a shark or a bear.

Any kind of 'special responsibility' we have is that which is simply self imposed. On what premise are you declaring this special responsibility?

[Formless]

And you miss the point of pragmatism. If the question has no real life basis, the question is utterly fucking pointless. Dumbass.

You use a philosophical exercise in order to determine exactly that it is being valued, and what reasoning someone uses to make a choice. You control for the extraneous variables so you can make a straight up comparison. That is why in discussions of the intrinsic morality of torture they often start out with "we will assume for the sake of argument that torture works".

I do not miss the point of pragmatism. I am in fact a utilitarian pragmatist.

It is not a strawman. It is a philosophical question. You will notice I also specified that you can just as well consider the social interactions already taken into account.

Stop trying to dodge the question and answer it. What, all other things being equal but species epithet is more valuable? Or do you roll a dice or something?

What, society is an "extraneous variable" now? What are you, fucking stoned? I already answered your dumbass question. I value a human life over an animal life because the animal doesn't contribute to society like a human does. Goddamn, you would think this would be easy to understand.

Do you have some kind of mental block keeping you from understanding the difference between holding one's breath for 2 minutes and sending spacecraft to the moon?

Not at all. My point was that while it may be cool, it does not mean we are categorically different from other organisms. Our intelligence, our ability to think, while important to use does not make us special. All it does is change the degree to which we can suffer (or hold certain interests if we want to fully apply proper ethical pragmatism)

To use an example. You have ten frogs of different species that while they are the same size, have different areas of toe webbing. The tenth frog has more toe webbing than the others. Now, say toe webbing is valued, and you are trying to maximize the amount of toe webbing you have at the end. In an ideal case, you can save all toe webbing. IE you need to sacrifice zero frogs. In any contest, the frog with the greatest toe webbing wins, and the other gets sacrificed. However in combination, it is possible that other frogs will have a combined webbing area that exceeds the tenth frog's.

What I am arguing against is the situation where said tenth frog is singled out for preservation at all costs. Its toe webbing is no different than any other frogs. It is not qualitatively different. It is however quantitatively different.

In the same way, a human's ability to think is quantitatively greater than that of any other animal. However that quantity does not set us apart as qualitatively special.

Do you understand now?

I think it is cool. Just not qualitatively special. Not any more than any other adaptation.

The thing is, I never said there was a categorical or qualitative difference between man and animals. That is your strawman. I said that there is a practical difference. Furthermore, our intelligence does more than increase our ability to suffer-- it also increases our ability to comprehend the universe and the threats it contains and come up with solutions to those threats. For example, asteroids: a threat we know has made species go extinct in the past, and which our space technology may allow us to protect the earth from in the future. I guess you could say I take more inspiration from Carl Sagan than Richard Dawkins when it comes to ethics, but it makes sense: for the same reason we value scientists, doctors, police, and rescue workers more highly than we value, say, bag boys we value human lives over animal ones. Its not that we don't value the animal ones at all, but precisely because we do value them. Quantitative differences are important that way. Do you understand?

See, its fatalism like that that you cannot defend. Andromeda hitting the Milky Way isn't going to effect human civilization.

It refutes your claim that we can make ourselves safe from extinction pretty well. I am pretty sure we wont survive that.

Tell me why you think that. When galaxies collide, its not like when planetoids collide-- galaxies are made mostly of empty space. They actually for the most part pass through each other and its only the effect of gravity that transfers any energy between them at all. Plus there is the fact that such collisions take forever to complete. By the time Andromeda hits the Milky Way, who knows what technological capabilities we'll have. But if we're going to die out, its most likely going to be sooner, not later, and it'll be because we were dumber than I give us credit for.

I'm placing the needs of one cat against the needs of one human. That's exactly the kind of situation where it becomes important which life you value more. Get it right. All my ethics are pragmatic: the separation is based on observed differences in their utility to society. How is this so hard to understand? Its not speciesist to say that an animal lacks the cognitive toolset needed to contribute to society. Its just a fact.

Oh I see. You are pragmatic, but you are using a different version of pragmatism than the actual ethical system called pragmatism.

Eh, its a flexible word unfortunately. Technically pragmatism deals with epistemology, but it can also mean practicality. Morality is a means to an end-- a goal system-- and I see the goal of survival met better by valuing human society because it enables such things as science, medicine, space technology, etc.. But you can't value human society without valuing humans.

Also, it is still speciesist. All you are doing is changing the group size. You are changing "Usefullness to human individuals" to "Usefullness to human groups". I can just as well be "pragmatic"[sic] with the value placed on usefullness to groups of elephants and it has just as much validity.

Oh, fine, I'll humor you. But since I value humans because I value other animal life (and in fact life itself), I don't see why you think this is a bad thing. It is NOT comparable to racism for the same reasons elitism is not comparable to racism. I don't know how you think you can justify that bullshit.

[Formless]

You want to have your cake and eat it too: enjoy the lifestyle afforded to us by our unprecedented mechanized power over other animals, while rejecting the idea that our great power comes with any kind of special responsibility that would not be shared by a shark or a bear.

As usual, Darth Wong sums up my opinion in fewer words than I can muster (albeit, to argue something slightly different than I).

[Alyrium Denryle]

What, society is an "extraneous variable" now? What are you, fucking stoned? I already answered your dumbass question. I value a human life over an animal life because the animal doesn't contribute to society like a human does. Goddamn, you would think this would be easy to understand.

Which begs the question why we should care about human societies themselves. The characteristics we value in human societies (human groups) also apply to aggregates of animals, so why do you make a distinction?


I understand your argument. In fact I think I understand it better than you do, because I grasp its logical implications.

I said that there is a practical difference.

And that practical difference is based upon the presupposition that human groups (ie societies) are special and ethically distinct categorically from animal groups (societies. Say, a troupe of chimps). This position is extensionally equivalent to placing categorical distinctness on human individuals, the difference is just scale. It suffers from the same logical problems I have pointed out before.

Furthermore, our intelligence does more than increase our ability to suffer-- it also increases our ability to comprehend the universe and the threats it contains and come up with solutions to those threats. For example, asteroids: a threat we know has made species go extinct in the past, and which our space technology may allow us to protect the earth from in the future.

Of course. And while that is cool, and a particularly useful adaptation, it does not impart moral specialness that is distinct from any other adaptation.

To sum up your argument.

"Humans are more valuable than animals regardless of circumstance because humans are useful to human societies because they possess characteristics unique to humans. In other words, humans are more valuable than animals because they are humans"

It is the same circular argument I have been arguing against for the last couple of pages, all you have done is trussed up the words a bit.

I guess you could say I take more inspiration from Carl Sagan than Richard Dawkins when it comes to ethics, but it makes sense: for the same reason we value scientists, doctors, police, and rescue workers more highly than we value, say, bag boys we value human lives over animal ones. Its not that we don't value the animal ones at all, but precisely because we do value them. Quantitative differences are important that way. Do you understand?

Then answer this question.

Is there ever a situation where people lose?

Tell me why you think that. When galaxies collide, its not like when planetoids collide-- galaxies are made mostly of empty space.

Gravitational forces will do some interesting things even if nothing ever actually makes physical contact.

By the time Andromeda hits the Milky Way, who knows what technological capabilities we'll have. But if we're going to die out, its most likely going to be sooner, not later, and it'll be because we were dumber than I give us credit for.

Oh I agree. Chances are we will die sooner than that. And we are definitely more stupid than you give us credit for. If nothing else we will go extinct with the universe's heat-death.

But you can't value human society without valuing humans.

Which gets back to my point above.

Oh, fine, I'll humor you. But since I value humans because I value other animal life (and in fact life itself), I don't see why you think this is a bad thing. It is NOT comparable to racism for the same reasons elitism is not comparable to racism.

Elitism and racism are completely different things. Racism generally entails some reduction in the ethical obligations held toward a group of people. Elitism (when not combined with prejudice) is simply the idea that one group of individuals is better than another group of individuals at task X and should therefore be the ones performing task X.

When dealing with humans of different level of ability at particular tasks you find valuable, do you think that you owe a higher level of ethical obligation toward those individuals who are better at tasks you value? For example, would you sacrifice yourself to save someone more useful to society? Or perhaps feel comfortable harvesting the organs of homeless people to give to sick engineers?

[Formless]

Which begs the question why we should care about human societies themselves. The characteristics we value in human societies (human groups) also apply to aggregates of animals, so why do you make a distinction?

Because animal societies cannot further understanding of the world or protect themselves from existential threats. We can. Ergo, we have a duty to do so. In order to fulfill that duty, we cannot overlook our own survival. If said survival requires us to eat a little meat or to do a few experiments on animals, we must do so. Yes, we can quibble over how humane we must be (obviously I'm not advocating arbitrary cruelty to animals) but that is the way things are.

And that practical difference is based upon the presupposition that human groups (ie societies) are special and ethically distinct categorically from animal groups (societies. Say, a troupe of chimps). This position is extensionally equivalent to placing categorical distinctness on human individuals, the difference is just scale. It suffers from the same logical problems I have pointed out before.

Quit strawmanning, Alyrium, you know that isn't my argument. Do we not have a duty to other animals that requires us to survive to fulfill and which no other animal has the ability to fulfill? If yes, then we absolutely do have a special place that has nothing to do with presupposition. Goddamn you are stubborn.

To sum up your argument. *snip strawman*

To sum up my argument:

1) human intelligence grants us technological abilities at a scale no other animal has. This technology requires human civilization to maintain.

2) we have a duty to use our technology to protect all forms of life if possible. This can be justified on utilitarian principals you have adequately stated in this thread.

3) in order to fulfill that duty, we have to survive and protect our civilization. Unfortunately, this comes at a price both to us and to other forms of life, but it is an unavoidable effect of our evolution. In effect, in order to fulfill the second point, we must value a human life more than an animal one as the lesser evil than letting them die off due to an existential hazard like asteroids or rapid climate change.

This all flows from the implications of our intelligence. But it has nothing to do with uniqueness or special pleading.

Then answer this question.

Is there ever a situation where people lose?

If a human being is actively killing animals for no reason, he is being cruel and by all means should "lose". Similarly, if our civilization as a whole cannot make an effort to reduce unnecessary extinction events, we have failed our duty, and we should "lose." That does not necessarily mean we should go extinct as a species, mind you, but that we bear responsibility for those events and should make an effort to change, no matter how painful that will be. The numbers can certainly be on the side of non-humans. But most of the time, they aren't.

If nothing else we will go extinct with the universe's heat-death.

Sure, barring something right out of sci-fi like time or multiverse travel there is no cheating entropy. But that's so far into the future its best not to dwell on it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Quit strawmanning, Alyrium, you know that isn't my argument.

It is not a strawman if you have not articulated this set of premises down here, and are making arguments identical to the position I am attacking. That it is not your position is not my fault. It is yours for poorly articulating it. Now that you have laid out your position, I can evaluate it.

If a human being is actively killing animals for no reason, he is being cruel and by all means should "lose". Similarly, if our civilization as a whole cannot make an effort to reduce unnecessary extinction events, we have failed our duty, and we should "lose." That does not necessarily mean we should go extinct as a species, mind you, but that we bear responsibility for those events and should make an effort to change, no matter how painful that will be. The numbers can certainly be on the side of non-humans. But most of the time, they aren't.

I mean in terms of a policy decision. Say for example a group of poor individuals lives next to a nature reserve and wants to clear cut it so they can sell off the wood. Say there are several endangered species living in this section of rainforest as well. Dont respond to this point by point. Respond after you have read the following.

To sum up my argument:

1) human intelligence grants us technological abilities at a scale no other animal has. This technology requires human civilization to maintain.

2) we have a duty to use our technology to protect all forms of life if possible. This can be justified on utilitarian principals you have adequately stated in this thread.

3) in order to fulfill that duty, we have to survive and protect our civilization. Unfortunately, this comes at a price both to us and to other forms of life, but it is an unavoidable effect of our evolution. In effect, in order to fulfill the second point, we must value a human life more than an animal one as the lesser evil than letting them die off due to an existential hazard like asteroids or rapid climate change.

This all flows from the implications of our intelligence. But it has nothing to do with uniqueness or special pleading.

The implication of this position, and as a matter of fact you explicitly state, is that there is a cost to us. This is basically an optimization function. Individuals do not matter. So there should be no problem sacrificing a group of individual people provided their contribution to the overall survival of society is sufficiently low, and the cost to other life forms sufficiently high.

[Formless]

The implication of this position, and as a matter of fact you explicitly state, is that there is a cost to us. This is basically an optimization function. Individuals do not matter. So there should be no problem sacrificing a group of individual people provided their contribution to the overall survival of society is sufficiently low, and the cost to other life forms sufficiently high.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you? Its not like I would arbitrarily throw lives away, as that would be contrary to the point of utilitarianism. But if, in a forced choice situation, someone has to lose... let it be the one's who have nothing to contribute, and are actually causing harm. You are a utilitarian, this shouldn't be anything new to you. All utilitarianism is about optimization of the "greater good," and this argument is no exception.

I mean in terms of a policy decision. Say for example a group of poor individuals lives next to a nature reserve and wants to clear cut it so they can sell off the wood. Say there are several endangered species living in this section of rainforest as well. Dont respond to this point by point. Respond after you have read the following.

They should be relocated somewhere where they cannot cause harm. Seems pretty obvious. Its just like the argument we had with Hidden Author about why you shouldn't waste water farming a desert.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you? Its not like I would arbitrarily throw lives away, as that would be contrary to the point of utilitarianism. But if, in a forced choice situation, someone has to lose... let it be the one's who have nothing to contribute, and are actually causing harm. You are a utilitarian, this shouldn't be anything new to you. All utilitarianism is about optimization of the "greater good," and this argument is no exception.

Then this whole time we have not actually been disagreeing, just talking past eachother.

I find that amusing.

[RedImperator]

I don't expect nor need a shark or bear to feel bad if it decides to have a human for lunch, so why should I feel bad about eating a burger? Am I supposed to apologize for being one of the apex predator species on the planet?

I easily grant as a society we consume vastly more meat products than we need to, and I think we need to have serious consideration for humanely raising species for slaughter. That said, I'm not going to apologize for how we're evolved.

Go cry to nature about the brutal and vicious aspects of living organisms; the fact that people have the luxury of whining about the ethics of what and how we eat just further reflects the spoiled nature of our society.

This argument is abominable, even by your standards. Humans also evolved to rape, breed without regard for future resource consumption, cuckold each other, and resolve disputes with murder. I suppose instead of prisons, condoms, and divorce court, we should just "go cry to nature about the brutal and vicious aspects of living organisms."

Toss a vegan into a situation where their need to eat can only be practically sated by killing and consuming other organisms, and I'd like to see how long their holier than thou bullshit attitude lasts.

Absolutely nobody in this thread has self-identified as a vegan, let alone displayed a "holier than thou bullshit attitude". For a chest-thumping meat-gobbling he-man, you're awfully defensive--apparently, even questioning whether eating meat is morally acceptable is enough to send you off on a sputtering tirade.

If you chose to be a vegan, good for you. Just don't try and pretend that choice is anything but a luxury that the success of the human species as a whole grants you.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? I'll go set the hay bale on fire before you build a strawman--absolutely nobody is arguing that a starving human in the forest, or an extremely poor society that must obtain calories by any means necessary, or whatever other situation you care to contrive, shouldn't eat meat. However, once you're in the modern West, you don't have any excuses.

You know what else is a luxury that the success of the human species as a whole grants us? Not leaving newborn babies outside to die of exposure because the tribe can't support another mouth to feed. If we apply your reasoning to this practice, however, not only is it morally acceptable to expose unwanted babies to death (because we evolved to do it, and nature is cruel), but anyone who objects is a spoiled hectoring whiner who should just shut up and eat their tofu raise unwanted babies quietly.

Hilariously, I'm not even a vegetarian. I basically share Rye's position--I can't morally justify it (and don't attempt to do so), but I do it anyway. This is, however, easily the stupidest argument I've ever seen for eating meat. It's not even that uncommon a fallacy, but you've somehow managed to make it more idiotic, through the magic of hysterical self-righteous chest-beating. So congratulations, I guess.

Incidentally, if a meat-gobbling he-man like yourself gets heart disease from eating too much meat, should we use your tax dollars to pay for his medical care?

[Rye]

Whenever I come across this argument, I immediately substitute "meat production" for "animal testing". The two areas are intrinsically linked due to the morality and ethics related to the organisms being subjected to such treatment and those benefiting off it. So, trying not to go OT, would those condemning the eating of meat and animal products in affluent societies apply the same condemnation to the use of animals in areas where a positive gain that benefits, not only humans, but the non-human animals being used as well? Even Singer, the icon for the animal rights movement, has agreed in the past that if we can only find a cure for human ailments via testing on even primates like macaques, then that is what must be done.

Meat production is so much more "bourgeois" and wasteful and unhealthy for both society and the environment than animal testing. Long story short, meat production that produces cities of imprisoned, suffering fellow mammals and literal rivers of shit, for our own luxuries, is not in the same league as testing for new cures to humans and non-humans alike.

Before we go on I just want to confirm whether you think bacteria can experience concepts like happiness and suffering since their material needs can also be met? Once I have a better idea of how you stand I will be able to posit my reply.

They react to their environment, avoid environmental dangers, seek out food, they even have pigments that give them a chemical equivalent of primitive sight. Happiness and suffering I would more closely associate with neural senses out of familiarity.

The same rationale why I have rights.

And what's that?

I pointed out eating less meat benefits humanity from an ecological perspective, eg easier to feed ourselves, combat climate change etc. Generally I would have thought it a given that I am of course refering to current humans and not potential humans when I mention "humanity". I don't know where you got the increase humanity's numbers especially when increase numbers would put increase strain on the environment which will not benefit humanity as each average human will not have as high a standard of living.

It's the logical outgrowth of human life being the only thing that matters.

Its not so much they don't matter AT ALL, they just matter less (all other things being equal). To elaborate what I mean by all other things being equal, I will consider things like rarity of species vs humanity, whether that species is an ecological pest (so I have no objections to Australia trying to sell Cane toads to China because they think they can get Chinese consumers to eat it, and yes they are trying that).

Okay.

But there are many alcoholics and druggies and few livers. Lets exclude them altogether from transplants (assuming other medical treatment fail) in favour of other people dying of liver failure who needs transplant.

And just for interest, what type of non junkie human would be worth killing this hypothetical chimp for?

I wouldn't exclude them from transplants altogether, I would just put them at the back of the queue. As for what person would be worth killing a chimp for, I don't know. I definitely would for most doctors, but I wouldn't for, say, Glenn Beck.

[Lagmonster]

Issues of biology do make for irrational human-centric decisions, such as the urge to reproduce and consume at any cost, and we leave it to our intelligence to implement proper checks and balances along the way.

And I fail to see the checks and balances in that anthropocentric position.

Yes, well, I said that we leave it to our intelligence, not our prejudices, to implement proper checks and balances against those aspects of our nature, our anthropocentrism if you will, which are potentially harmful in excess. Our urge is to eat tasty animals. Our intelligence tells us there is a destructive aspect to overindulging that urge.

Of course, as I said elsewhere, some people have too many problems of their own just surviving - or are too self-centered and happy with their luxuries - to give a care about things other than themselves. I'd argue that the answer lies in helping the former people overcome their problems, with a reasonable dose of condemning the short-sightedness of the latter.

Gee, how many biologists do you know? We often have to use that anthropocentric reasoning when trying to deal with the Plebes, because we know that to a large degree only the biologists and a few philosophers care about that little frog off in the corner for its own sake. Why do you think we devote our lives to studying them?

The *popular* image of the environmental movement is 'save the planet', with pictures of slices of said ecology we're being asked to feel empathy for. While I said that I suspect far more selfish - although highly reasonable - motivations, I admit I'm over-generalizing.

As for the idea that biologists care more about animals...sure, it's true for you, and certainly among many field reserachers, but not all the people involved would put that at the top of their list of motives, especially when you start considering those aspects which tie in to agriculture. And people may choose to start careers in the natural sciences due to things like curiosity, or family pressure, or because of the human benefits that we achieve via animal welfare. Family pressure accounts for much of the career pathing in my family's case, where careers in education and veterinary science influenced same through the generations.

See above. You are making an awfully general and absolute statement. I will sometimes use anthropocentric arguments in a debate on say... human population growth, but that is not actually what I am thinking. What I am really thinking is that we are killing off every other organism on the planet, and we need to have our populations taken down a peg. Painfully if necessary. Why? Because the thought that frogs might be silent in spring after being on this planet since the Triassic fills me with a great sadness the likes of which I dont think you can comprehend. Not only the personal sadness from losing something I love, but the sadness that comes from knowing a great moral evil is occurring that you have no power to stop.

I don't doubt for a moment that you feel that way. Although I certainly oppose excess in human society and culture, I exercise a certain amount of hypocrisy in that I don't wish other people dead merely because they had the misfortune of being born when there were too many of us. You'd probably be very hard pressed to argue that dangerous human excess hasn't benefitted you tremendously, so you may well also feel guilty as hell.

Which is a reasonable expectation, but that does not entail that those positions are correct of followed through logically. Most people never actually make decisions that impact much more than their immediate surroundings. So I would say that in the general case, most people never really have ethical duties to things much bigger than themselves. Not causing needless cruelty (IE. dont crucify mice) and over-consuming i think is the extent of their obligations on a day to day basis in this respect. To that end, I for example try to reduce my meat consumption, eat species that are lower on the Pain O' Meter that dont impact other species as much etc. I eat mostly poultry and sustainably farmed fish like tilapia and catfish.

And that's good; I agree entirely that reduction of excess is important and responsible meat-eating is also important. Obviously, I believe that because I'm prejudiced towards humans - I wish humanity to continue to survive, but I also wish them to enjoy the highest standard of luxury within the limitations of the former wish. I also believe that the statement of "minimize suffering, eliminate cruelty" is paramount in dealing with pain-feeling non-humans, because firstly I'm lucky enough to have sufficient personal comfort that I can afford to spend some time giving the matter any thought at all, and from that I believe that if I weren't a rational being, I wouldn't know or care whether I was killed for food or for any other reason, but that in any event I'd rather not suffer and feel pain. Empathy, in other words, with a tinge of golden rule self-consideration.

However that does not mean that these decisions cannot be shaped by policy, and those who make policy take on the responsibility of doing so. For example, meat consumption can be reduced by raising prices. By charging ranchers more to use public land for grazing, prices can be forced up and beef consumption reduced. Reforming the way our FDA, EPA and other regulatory agencies do testing, we can alleviate a lot of unnecessary suffering. Again, those who make policy have the responsibility fulfill more obligations than those who just go about their lives. They willingly take on that responsibility and are thus morally culpable.

I can tell you that agricultural policy is concerned with public safety and economics, but that they do respond to the current consumer demand that animal welfare be considered. Bill C-15B in Canada, the Health of Animals Act, Meat Inspection Act, and various codes and provincial regulations all exist in Canada to balance consumer needs and health with what is, frankly, a huge range of public opinions on animal rights and welfare.

[Iosef Cross]

To the animal lovers:
If you don't want for people to eat meat, there is a simple solution:
Gang up your money and buy all cows, pigs and chickens, fishes, in the world.

But there are about 2 billion cows, 1 trillion chickens, etc, what to do you do to this huge number of animals? Confine 99% of them to let them die out in peace while releasing 1% to the wild. It is maybe more humane than killing and reproducing them for food...

[salm]

To the animal lovers:
If you don't want for people to eat meat, there is a simple solution:
Gang up your money and buy all cows, pigs and chickens, fishes, in the world.

But there are about 2 billion cows, 1 trillion chickens, etc, what to do you do to this huge number of animals? Confine 99% of them to let them die out in peace while releasing 1% to the wild. It is maybe more humane than killing and reproducing them for food...

Yeah, and while we´re at it we could collect some more money and shovel it into the greedy mouths of the drug lords in order to stop the drug war in Mexico.

Quit acting dumber than you are.

[Surlethe]

Split aieeegrunt's non-argument to the HoS.

[Plekhanov]

Over a decade ago I made my decision to go vege on the following grounds:

- I don't need to eat meat to survive, the only reason to do so is the pleasure of eating meat
- killing for pleasure is unethical
- therefore eating meat is unethical

So far as I'm concerned there's significant difference between a bull being killed for by a matador for the pleasure of spectators or in a slaughter house for the pleasure of meat eaters.

If eating meat was necessary for me survive either due to a medical condition or unlikely change of circumstances I'd do so and probably enjoy it. I fully support testing of medicines upon animals as that is necessary to prevent suffering and death my objection is the direct killing of animals when it isn't necessary for survival.

The environmental costs of unnecessary meat consumption are an additional reason why most meat consumption in the west is unethical.

Just to emphasise my position isn't that all consumption of meat in unethical (it was obviously absolutely necessary for survival throughout most of our specie's existance) I simply regard it as unethical for most people in developed societies.

[Admiral Valdemar]

In the past year or so, I've started eating a lot of Quorn products too. Not totally replacing the other meat I eat, which is usually a lot less than I used to, but certainly enough to get a taste for it. I've been curious about how vat produced meat will develop, since in the not-too-distant future, I don't see it being any pricier than reared in the open meat.

[General Brock]

I've thought about it and can't really answer the question as posed. Meat is food. If you believe its better to let the animals be, that's fine.

If the question asked if meat could be obtained responsibly, there would be something to go on. There's really no distinction between sustainable harvesting, factory farming, or free-range livestock or for that matter a pet, or the subject of humane slaughter techniques.

I suppose if the question is, is it ethical to to take an animal's life for food, my answer would be yes on the condition the life was taken (for the lack of a better word) humanely and the sacrifice not wasted. If from livestock, that the living conditions were decent, if from the wild, that the ecosystem was healthy and species sustainable. It so happens that such conditions benefit both species in terms of long term survival and quality of life.

Its not any different than demanding non-GM crops and preferring to avoiding the GM plant industry because its corrupt and irresponsible. I'd prefer to totally avoid hydrolyzed soy products, and meat substitutes usually rely a lot on heavily processed GM soy.

[Broomstick]

A lot depends on how much effort you want to put into avoiding GM foods - you can grow your own legumes if you have some land and are able to put in the effort. You can obtain non-gm grains, and even make your own seitan. If you have the means to garden it's easy to get cheap, organic vegetables without GM influence (go for the heirloom varieties).

If you go with processed food you're more likely to get GM influence, and the more processed the more likely that is.

[Buritot]

I honestly don't see any ethical reason not to eat meat. Rationally, I know the energy spent on meat is like ten times the energy spent on plants providing the same amount of kcal. I see the reasons why a purely vegetarian diet would help stopping world hunger. But that is the only ethical reasoning by proxy that could convince me of not eating meat. But the consummation of meat itself is in my opinion intrinsically not an ethical taboo.

As it is now I'm having already trouble in eating enough meat to provide the necessary haemoglobin-percentage in my blood donations since I don't have any real preference for (red/mammal based) meat I tend to go for diary products, salads, fruits, vegetables and the likes.

[Broomstick]

If iron intake is a problem get some cast-iron cookware and use it.

[Plekhanov]

As it is now I'm having already trouble in eating enough meat to provide the necessary haemoglobin-percentage in my blood donations since I don't have any real preference for (red/mammal based) meat I tend to go for diary products, salads, fruits, vegetables and the likes.

I donate blood and have donated marrow with no difficulties whatsoever on a vegetarian diet.