Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[loseyourname]

Exactly. Therein lies the paradigm shift. I agree. We have nothing to talk about.

In fact, the reasons for not eating meat do not matter. Reasons are only a model for the real world. Models are arbitrary. Do the experiment. Shift the paradigm. What is the outcome? That's what counts.

That isn't the thing, though. I don't think that any act is intrinsically wrong. Actions take on moral worth only because of either the motivation of the actor or the consequences of the action. If you think certain actions have intrinsic worth, and eating meat is one of these, there is no experiment that can do anything for you. An experiment can do nothing but test consequences, but consequentialism is inconsistent with the idea of intrinsic worth.

 

[sheepdog]

The axioms

That isn't the thing, though. I don't think that any act is intrinsically wrong. Actions take on moral worth only because of either the motivation of the actor or the consequences of the action. If you think certain actions have intrinsic worth, and eating meat is one of these, there is no experiment that can do anything for you. An experiment can do nothing but test consequences, but consequentialism is inconsistent with the idea of intrinsic worth.

I think eating nails has intrinsic worth (whatever that means). So I eat nails, as an experiment. I believe the outcome of the experiment would change my thinking. Don't you? I think it is obvious that there are numerous experiments that can "do something for you".

The interesting question is, "Can we change? Is a paradigm shift possible"?" Of course, the answer is "yes", but how does that happen? Well, no amount of debate will have any effect. We have abundant, abundant evidence to that fact. This debate going on here is just entertainment, pure and simple -- of no consequence.

Human change occurs, paradigms shift, out of necessity, when the weight of reality cannot be denied. No one is going to talk you out of your point of view. You will either remain as you are, or you will be compelled to change by unknown, overwhelming circumstances and the paradigm will shift. Or you will do your own experiments driven by an irresistible need to know the whole truth and when you have fully completed them then the paradigm will shift.

All systems of reason and logic are ultimately based upon unprovable axioms. For this question it's up to each of us to determine the right axioms. Reason cannot assist us in doing this. It's a matter of experience. The future will be a direct reflection of the results of our efforts.

 

[loseyourname]

I think eating nails has intrinsic worth (whatever that means). So I eat nails, as an experiment. I believe the outcome of the experiment would change my thinking. Don't you? I think it is obvious that there are numerous experiments that can "do something for you".

The experiment cannot change your mind, by definition of "instrinsic." Intrinsic worth is not dependent upon consequences, such as the outcome of an experiment. A consequence is an extrinsic factor.

The interesting question is, "Can we change? Is a paradigm shift possible"?" Of course, the answer is "yes", but how does that happen?

That isn't an ethical question and isn't relevant to this discussion. The question relevant to this discussion is "Should we change?" You obviously think we should, but what do you offer as backing? The suffering of animals. When I point out that meat can be produced for consumption without inducing any suffering in the animal, what is your answer? Is it that there is an intrinsic worth to eating meat, and that worth is negative? That would contradict many other things you have said, which I am trying to point out (the very notion of experimentation, for instance, is inconsistent with intrinsic worth). Or is it that you are an animal rights advocate and you think that animals should have the right to not be killed? In this case, whether or not they suffer is irrelevant. If this is the position you hold, I don't see how you can hold it based on anything other than personal conviction. Well, I am personally convinced that animals should not have the right to not be killed. I do agree that they should have the right to not needlessly suffer, but I will not go any further than that. That is why I say we are at an impasse. You are convinced animals should have rights. I am not. All either of us has to go on is personal conviction. You cannot argue personal conviction.

All systems of reason and logic are ultimately based upon unprovable axioms. For this question it's up to each of us to determine the right axioms. Reason cannot assist us in doing this. It's a matter of experience. The future will be a direct reflection of the results of our efforts.

You're being incredibly vague here. For one thing, we are not talking about logical systems here. We are talking about ethical systems. Do you hold it as axiomatic that animals should have the right to not be killed? If you don't, you lose your case. If you do, we can have no discussion and you really have no reason to argue the point because there is nothing on which to base the assessment that your axiom is any better than mine, which says animals do not have that right. I do have the slight advantage of being in accordance with nature, but to be honest, I don't find that to be relevant to ethical matters.

 

[sheepdog]

Personal conviction

All either of us has to go on is personal conviction. You cannot argue personal conviction.

No you cannot argue personal conviction. That's what I said. In spite of that, the future will be a direct reflection of your personal conviction, and mine, and all of ours. So get it right. And I wish you well in doing so. All of our children's lives depend upon it.

 

[loseyourname]

No you cannot argue personal conviction. That's what I said. In spite of that, the future will be a direct reflection of your personal conviction, and mine, and all of ours. So get it right. And I wish you well in doing so. All of our children's lives depend upon it.

Well jeez, sheepy, what is it? Is it personal conviction or consequentialism? If you are personally convinced that animals have the right to not be killed, that right is intrinsic. It is not dependent on any consequences of their being killed, nor should the consequences even be relevant. Are you arguing that animal life has intrinsic worth, or are you arguing that the good consequences you think will arise from not eating meat have intrinsic worth? And remember, if it is the latter, you must then acknowledge that there are ways of bringing those consequences about that do not require the complete abandonment of meat products. The only way to avoid this is to say that the only consequence you are trying to bring about is a lack of animal death at human hands, in which case you simply revert to the intrinsic worth of animal life.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I found it rather gushing, that's all.

oh i see. well i guess i just found what derek does sort of inspirational because it really does deal with a paradigm shift that really has happened for a lot of people once they become aware of the factory farming cruelty they are supporting.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, so you make an analogy with Hitler, hoping to elicit that same feeling. It isn't going to work. You're going to have to make an actual case.

hitler's evilness isn't the issue here. the issue is that hitler was stopped because of what he was doing. look at my post #996 again

while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.
we didn't know what would happen if hitler hadn't been stopped, but it seemed a good idea to stop him

and if your 'rule of thumb' gets you all upset because i use hitler, by all means substitute whatever you wish in there appropriately.

the point is:
when we stop something (or someone) we do so because we want to stop the bad things that something (or someone) causes. we may not know what subsequent ramifications there may be (which is what seems to be restraining you).

Now I'll tell you why this is a bad analogy. The word "people." A person is an entity with rights. Animals do not have rights. They cannot be considered "people" unless you grant them rights. We cannot get any further until you acknowledge this and make a more honest analogy that is not an appeal to pity.

this is fascinating. perhaps i really should make a concerted appeal to pity and emotion, since you seem to be convinced that is what i am doing even though i explained it very precisely (and pitilessly and unemotionally) in post #1003.

let's try it once again:

1. people A oppressed people B
2. when people A were forced to stop oppressing people B they whined about it using excuses like
a) people B don't deserve rights because they are stupid, sub-human etc
b) we will lose money
c) we will lose money
d) it is traditional for us to oppress people B (they don't put it quite like that, of course)
e) it will be the end of civilization

it is quite true that people A did lose much of what they controlled and even endured hardship (in some cases). they had to adapt.

the point is:
that people adapt to the situation - so if their job disappears they find another.

(your are a bit presumptuous in saying 'animals don't have rights unless we grant these to them' btw, but we can deal with that later - it has nothing to do with what we are talking about - which happens to be the ramifications of a major change).

Then we can discuss how to minimize their suffering. You seem to think that the only way to do this is to eliminate the consumption of any and all meat products.

i don't know where you get this strange idea - of course there are ways to minimize suffering of animals and still eat them afterwards.
however, are you going to argue that elimination of meat consumption will not reduce the suffering of those you are planning to eat?

There are perfectly humane ways to kill an animal that do not involve any suffering and do not impact an ecosystem any more than vegetable farming.

what does humane killing have to do with impact on the ecosystem?
the impact on the ecosystem has to do with everything that is done before you do the killing.

If you won't grant these as an alternative, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are also granting animals the right not to be killed. I'm not granting this right, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse here and I doubt we will get through it.

i don't think we are at an impasse at all.

here are the only problems we have:

1. you are hung up on this pity emotional thing that you think i have introduced (which i haven't - actually it is you who has)
2. you don't read some things i write (eg you claim i have granted animals the right not to be killed - in fact, i specifically wrote that some AR philosophies don't argue inherent rights)
3. you haven't provided any of those alternatives you spoke of

so how about just dropping 1., work on 2. and present some specifics for 3. and we can certainly bypass this apparent impasse.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Do you hold it as axiomatic that animals should have the right to not be killed? If you don't, you lose your case.

sheepdog doesn't lose the case at all.
you are not considering the idea that may be even if animals don't have the right not to be killed, we don't have the 'right' to kill them.

 

[JPD]

Gosh is that the time? Must put the cat out.

 

[rgoudie]

Okay see, there you go again. You cannot be oppressed unless you have rights. I contend that we have not been through changes like this in the past. In the past, we freed oppressed people from those who would take away their rights. Here we would be releasing farm animals. It is not the same thing to me and I don't how you can say that is unless you grant animal rights.

With all due respect, your blindness is becoming rather irritating.

He doesn't need to grant animals rights, since they inherently possesses them by default. It is the humans that have been depriving animals of their rights. Since humans did not create the Universe and its contents (other than, perhaps, their little toys, such as computers, shoes, cell phones, automobiles, etc.) then humans don't themselves possesses the right to assign rights wherever and whenever they wish, even though they may possesses the intelligence and force required to do so.

Please, suspend the arrogant indignation that you are no doubt feeling as you read this and just accept the fact that you are oppressing entire species.

There you go again, friendly Prad. You're comparing the use of animal products to the Jewish holocaust. Stopping Hitler and stopping the manufacture of meat products is not the same thing unless you grant animal rights. You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy.

It is an excellent analogy because it works. I see no difference between how meat-eaters are defending animal suffering in the name of convenience and how Nazis might have defended their beliefs had this forum been available in the late 1930s, or how white slave-owners might have defended their beliefs about blacks being less than human. These white slave-owners also denied rights to non-whites, just as you are denying rights to non-humans. What is the difference?

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

Yes, it must be simply marvellous to be as wonderful and amazing as you. Why, us meat eaters can't even imagine what it must be like to be so enlightened and just so fabulously supreme.

Could it be that this anger that you are feeling is due to the fact that, deep down, you somewhat agree with what is being written, however your ego is refusing to acknowledge it and this is causing conflict within yourself that was targeted towards the source of these conflicting feelings?

-Ray.

 

[sheepdog]

Well jeez, sheepy, what is it? Is it personal conviction or consequentialism? If you are personally convinced that animals have the right to not be killed, that right is intrinsic. It is not dependent on any consequences of their being killed, nor should the consequences even be relevant. Are you arguing that animal life has intrinsic worth, or are you arguing that the good consequences you think will arise from not eating meat have intrinsic worth? And remember, if it is the latter, you must then acknowledge that there are ways of bringing those consequences about that do not require the complete abandonment of meat products. The only way to avoid this is to say that the only consequence you are trying to bring about is a lack of animal death at human hands, in which case you simply revert to the intrinsic worth of animal life.

It is certainly none of this garbage. That's for damn sure.

 

[JPD]

Could it be that this anger that you are feeling is due to the fact that, deep down, you somewhat agree with what is being written, however your ego is refusing to acknowledge it and this is causing conflict within yourself that was targeted towards the source of these conflicting feelings?

-Ray.

No, it arises from the placing of humans on pedestals based on words issuing from their mouths (well, fingers).
Do you want to place me in some kind of therapeutic unit so that I can regress and blame it all on a non-existant uncle who was too fond of sitting me on his knees?

 

[JPD]

It is certainly none of this garbage. That's for damn sure.

Well that's a grand response.

 

[sheepdog]

a

Well that's a grand response.

No less than was deserved.

 

[rgoudie]

Do you want to place me in some kind of therapeutic unit so that I can regress and blame it all on a non-existant uncle who was too fond of sitting me on his knees?

Not at all. I was just hazarding a guess.

-Ray.

 

[OneEye]

It is certainly none of this garbage. That's for damn sure.

...at the risk of intermeddling: loseyourname is arguing factually. You are cursing at him.

Wonder who has the upper hand on this one?

 

[OneEye]

I do agree that high sugar diets can be very detrimental to your health. However, I am concerned about the long-term implications of extremely high protein, low carb diets over the long term. But if you find that a high protein diet works for you, you may want to consider a high protein vegetarian diet. I know there is a diet called the Soy Zone which may be worth checking out.

Thanks for the info, Derek, but I am unconvinced by the "healthy vegetarian" arguments that are going around out there. As I pointed out in my long post on the pro-meat rationale (#970), the health arguments don't stand up in the light of human experience: If we are willing to use Hindu data to demonstrate the viability of the vegetarian lifestyle, then we should also be willing to use Inuit and Bedouin data to support the viability of a meat-heavy diet. (See my post #970, by the way, which provides solid ethical, health, and environmental support for the meat-eaters' position - and which no-one has attempted to reply to.)

By the way, did you know that epileptics are all placed on high-protein diets? And certainly you knew that many people do not tolerate soy sources at all well.

Bottom line: I am unimpressed by the "healthy vegetarian" arguments. If someone had a sound ethical argument for not eating meat, that would maybe be compelling to me. But the health argument is simply not persuasive.

 

[OneEye]

It is an excellent analogy because it works. I see no difference between how meat-eaters are defending animal suffering in the name of convenience and how Nazis might have defended their beliefs had this forum been available in the late 1930s, or how white slave-owners might have defended their beliefs about blacks being less than human. These white slave-owners also denied rights to non-whites, just as you are denying rights to non-humans. What is the difference?

News flash: Animals are not people.

The Jews were people.

The slaves were people.

Animals are not.

The animals which people eat have an ecological role of prey. They serve as food in nature.

People have the ecological role of omnivores, and eat prey animals.

If chimpanzees can do it, so can I!

 

[sheepdog]

...at the risk of intermeddling: loseyourname is arguing factually. You are cursing at him.

Wonder who has the upper hand on this one?

The word was for emphasis, not insult. I understand his position. But it is certainly, certainly, not factual. There are, in fact, no facts whatsoever in his argument. That is exactly what makes it so dismissable. Where are the facts? Please, if you think there are facts, tell me what facts? All I see are abstractions. Useless abstractions. This is the very problem. The absence of facts. First come the facts. Then the abstractions to support the perception of facts. No facts, useless abstractions.

I suggest you evaluate the situation again.

 

[sheepdog]

Being

If chimpanzees can do it, so can I!

Are you married, OneEye? Would your wife (if you have one) agree to chimpanzee sexual practices? Then why should she agree to chimpanzee eating practices?

We could be chimpanzees, or nearly so. But the question is, "Do we really want to be chimpanzees?" Not I. Then what do we want to be?

 

[rgoudie]

If chimpanzees can do it, so can I!

Well, chimpanzees also scratch their butts and smell their fingers.

Does your statement imply that you expect to be able to at least do what a chimpanzee does, or at most do what a chimpanzee does?

In any case, I don't believe that chimpanzees hoard entire species of animals so that they can trot over to their local supermarket for a quick fix.

Isn't prey something that is hunted and caught for food? Where is the hunting in the manner in which you obtain your meat? Is your weapon your plastic debit card?

Your argument, in this particular case, is that it is natural to hunt prey animals. However, I am still at the point that it is not natural to hoard and exploit entire species of animals.

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

Bottom line: I am unimpressed by the "healthy vegetarian" arguments. If someone had a sound ethical argument for not eating meat, that would maybe be compelling to me. But the health argument is simply not persuasive.

When I became a vegetarian in 1996, it was because of ethical reasons; the very same reasons that I have been spouting in this thread. I had effectively boycotted meat because of the obscenities in factory farming. As an aside, I am also enjoying the health benefits, but I am not debating that angle in this thread. Others are doing a fine job of debating this aspect.

OneEye, what would it take for your ethics to be insulted?

-Ray.

 

[derek1]

Most people don't live in a ranching area. I do, so I have the opportunity to investigate the "cruel oppression" of cows and pigs which goes on out here...

Hi OneEye,

I don't know about the farms in your particular area, but I have been in many factory farms and I have witnessed extreme cruelty. You emphasize the word "factual", seeming to imply that my account is not factual despite the fact that I have provided dozens of photographs and videos of what I have experienced, while you have provided no documentation or evidence whatsoever. I have seen and documented numerous animals thrown away in trash cans or dumpsters left to die a slow death.

I agree that cows don't have it as bad as most of the other animals, since factory farming is less prevalent in the beef industry, but no doubt, they are still abused. They are branded, de-horned, and castrated without painkillers. If this were done to a human, a dog, or a cat, this would be considered torture. Likewise, slaughter can be quite brutal. For example, see this recent investigation at a slaughterhouse:

http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/

Numerous other instances of cruelty have been documented including animals being skinned alive as indicated in the Washington Post a few years ago, and documented thorougly in Slaughterhouse by Gail Eisnitz.

And as for pigs, approximately 80 percent are raised in extreme confinement. These are USDA figures from the swine survey they did a while ago...If anything the percentage has increased since then..

Once again, numerous abuses exist in the pork industry as well and have been well documented. I encourage you to visit the Humane Farming Association's website for more info on the cruel treatment of pigs, and its all just the tip of the iceburg.

http://www.hfa.org/campaigns/tribarticle.html


Derek

 

[physicsisphirst]

..at the risk of intermeddling: loseyourname is arguing factually.

i don't think intermeddling is a problem on this thread, but claiming that loseyourname is arguing factually is. as sheepdog quite correctly points out, all that "if ... then" stuff about "intrinsic worth" and "consequences" is mere abstraction (and not fact). also, the consequents that are being dragged out from the antecedents do not follow (so as you no doubt know, the statement may be 'true', but is meaningless).
please give the thing another look as sheepdog suggests.

I pointed out in my long post on the pro-meat rationale (#970) ... which no-one has attempted to reply to.

ya i know how you feel!
rgoudie, dooga, cogito asked some important questions (one of them to you!) - but no one responded. i asked those same questions on their behalf again (post #951) - no one responded.
i'll respond to your post eventually, if no one else does.

News flash: Animals are not people. The Jews were people. The slaves were people.

yes these statements are quite correct, but i feel you are missing the point of what rgoudie wrote. the manner in which one party was treated by the other is very similar. the excuses that one party uses to justify what they do have been pretty well documented too.

People have the ecological role of omnivores, and eat prey animals.

this is a very strange thing to say (and not just that inaccurate tidbit about humans being omnivores - see post #900 again) - how can the billions of animals that are deliberately and artificially 'grown', be considered as prey in any ecological sense? (rgoudie also questions your statement in post #1037)

But the question is, "Do we really want to be chimpanzees?"

that is a very good point (as is your key question "Then what do we want to be?")
i'm a bit surprised you have had to draw it to oneeye's attention though, since in post #784 he stated quite adamantly

My thesis all along has been, "Man cannot be classed with other animals, since man has a unique moral responsibility.

I really find oneeye's recent "If chimpanzees can do it, so can I!" to be somewhat in conflict with his original thesis.

Your argument, in this particular case, is that it is natural to hunt prey animals. However, I am still at the point that it is not natural to hoard and exploit entire species of animals.

it is really amazing that some people actually consider going to the supermarket to pick up a slab of cellophaned meat as being some ritual that satisfies some supposed ancient predatory urge. interestingly enough, i have talked to more than a few hunters in the past who are repulsed by the supermarket and its factory farmed products. they at least do what they consider their own 'dirty work' and in the wild (what's left of it anyway) instead of drawing the weapon of choice - that plastic debit card (as you say) - and paying into this system that "hoards and exploits entire species".

 

[Be Happy!]

Most people don't live in a ranching area. I do, so I have the opportunity to investigate the "cruel oppression" of cows and pigs which goes on out here...

I tend to be tenderhearted when it comes to the treatment of animals, but I have had very few occasions to wince as I have visited with and sometimes worked with the ranchers out here...

I hope that this offers some helpful factual information to this discussion.

(P.S. Veal pens, BTW, are [in my opinion] unnecessary and inhumane. Neither my wife nor I will eat veal because of this.)

OneEye,

I have been following your writings for sometime now, and I must say that I have been pleasantly surprised with your recent sincerity and was very happy to hear that you are concerned about animal cruelty. (sometimes it's hard to tell the individual from the writing on such forums as we are so disconnected from each other)

Yes, veal crates are horrible...I think most European countries have banned them as well as other factory farming devices such as gestation crates(which keep pregnant pigs confined) and battery cages (where 3-6 hens are stuffed for about 2 years of their miserable lives just to lay eggs!) Europe is certainly ahead of us when it comes to humane treatment of animals and I commend you for not wanting to participate in the cruel treatment of baby cows. It takes action from kind and concerned people like you to make changes- it happened in Europe and it can certainly happen here!

I am glad that the farms near you provide ample space for animals, but the truth remains that over 90% of farmed animals (10+ billion land animals killed in the US alone) are factory farmed! I wish the ranch was more common than it is because at least the animals would have a better life, but that is not the case. The problem is that factory farms are so "efficient" at creating profit that they end up squelching the small farms. There is actually an organization that you might be interested in which is a coalition of small animal farmers who are against factory farming http://www.factoryfarm.org- this is not a vegetarian group by any means, so I think you will be able to relate to their concerns. Also, you might enjoy watching their award winning video called the Meatrix, it's very well done you can watch it at http://www.themeatrix.com/

Anyhow, I visited the websites that derek1 listed: http://www.EggCruelty.com and http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp. I think you might find the pictures enlightening. It's sad, but most of the animals we buy at grocery store come from conditions such as the ones he is working to expose. It's a very admirable effort and if nothing else, i think a conscious consumer is better than an unconscious one.

I'd be very interested in hearing what you think of the links I've provided. I look forward to hearing from you! :)



Sangeeta

 

[derek1]

Thanks for the info, Derek, but I am unconvinced by the "healthy vegetarian" arguments that are going around out there.

Here's a quote from one of the largest and most respected group of dieticians in the world:

“Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.”

--American Dietetic Association, June 2003 position paper


For more info on the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, visit

http://www.ChooseVegetarian.com

 

[OneEye]

The word was for emphasis, not insult. I understand his position. But it is certainly, certainly, not factual. There are, in fact, no facts whatsoever in his argument. That is exactly what makes it so dismissable. Where are the facts? Please, if you think there are facts, tell me what facts? All I see are abstractions. Useless abstractions. This is the very problem. The absence of facts. First come the facts. Then the abstractions to support the perception of facts. No facts, useless abstractions.

I suggest you evaluate the situation again.

Ohh, puh-leeeze!

 

[OneEye]

Are you married, OneEye? Would your wife (if you have one) agree to chimpanzee sexual practices? Then why should she agree to chimpanzee eating practices?

We could be chimpanzees, or nearly so. But the question is, "Do we really want to be chimpanzees?" Not I. Then what do we want to be?

Sure, why not?

That may sound flippant, but the fact is that you will have an extraordinarily hard time answering that question.

And it's basically the same question - and founded in the same rationale - as the question, "Should humans eat meat?"

I challenge you to do so.

 

[OneEye]

Does your statement imply that you expect to be able to at least do what a chimpanzee does, or at most do what a chimpanzee does?

In any case, I don't believe that chimpanzees hoard entire species of animals so that they can trot over to their local supermarket for a quick fix.

Isn't prey something that is hunted and caught for food? Where is the hunting in the manner in which you obtain your meat? Is your weapon your plastic debit card?

Your argument, in this particular case, is that it is natural to hunt prey animals. However, I am still at the point that it is not natural to hoard and exploit entire species of animals.

-Ray.

I really don't know why it matters as to how we get our prey.

Some species of ant enslave and milk aphids.

Butcher birds kill many more insects and rodents than they can eat, and store them on a thorn bush.

Crocodile pile up meat in a larder.

Termite mounds are chimpanzee refrigerators.

Skuas raid gull nesting grounds.

Bluejays ruthlessly destroy the eggs of other birds - even if those birds don't compete in the bluejay's niche.

Wake up and smell the nature, will ya?

It seems to be human nature to husband flocks and herds.

So what?

 

[OneEye]

OneEye, what would it take for your ethics to be insulted?

My ethics are insulted by some of the farming practices discussed in this forum. But this does not equate to an obligation to vegetarianism.

A variety of reasons as to why this is come to mind, but I would like to ask you a question (and I invite every vegetarian who reads this to respond as well):

If farming methods were reformed, would you then think it ethically acceptable to eat meat?

If not, then you are not basing your vegetarianism on farm cruelty, and so you should stop using that argument - and argue your actual position.

A little clarification, please...

 

[OneEye]

You emphasize the word "factual", seeming to imply that my account is not factual

...sorry to seem to make that allegation. I was not aiming at you in particular. However, I am scandalized and offended by crusading veggies who constantly make claims with no experiential basis whatsoever - just a lot of web links to veggie sites, with no reference to balancing information.

Take, for instance the infamous:

For example, see this recent investigation at a slaughterhouse:

http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/

Were you aware that Agriprocessors is the last large processing company to use the chain-lift method to comply with federal guidelines? Most of the industry has gone to raised cages. Veggies don't find this reform useful, however, so they don't bother to mention that Agriprocessors is using an uncommon and antiquated practice - and that Congress is currently considering legislation to make the tackle-and-lift technique illegal.

So - a serious false emphasis on an uncommon practice.

It's this sort of biased reporting that drives me away from the veggie position.

I wish some veggie crusader would crusade through the veggie world and fight for honest reporting!

 

[OneEye]

i don't think intermeddling is a problem on this thread, but claiming that loseyourname is arguing factually is. as sheepdog quite correctly points out, all that "if ... then" stuff about "intrinsic worth" and "consequences" is mere abstraction (and not fact). also, the consequents that are being dragged out from the antecedents do not follow (so as you no doubt know, the statement may be 'true', but is meaningless).
please give the thing another look as sheepdog suggests.

I'm shocked at you, standing up for that sort of behavior!

"if...then" is an essential rational practice. "intrinsic worth" is an indispensable ground of the ethical question of eating meat.

Just tossing off those questions is intellectual irresponsibilty. And doing so with a cuss word is rude - and in my view, a concession of defeat.

ya i know how you feel!
rgoudie, dooga, cogito asked some important questions (one of them to you!) - but no one responded. i asked those same questions on their behalf again (post #951) - no one responded.

You keep saying this sort of thing, but it's not true. I have answered all of those points - most of them individually, but all of them in my longer post.

yes these statements are quite correct, but i feel you are missing the point of what rgoudie wrote. the manner in which one party was treated by the other is very similar. the excuses that one party uses to justify what they do have been pretty well documented too.

The slavery and genocide arguments only work because they were done to humans. This is the substantial difference that you are repeatedly ignoring.

this is a very strange thing to say (and not just that inaccurate tidbit about humans being omnivores - see post #900 again) - how can the billions of animals that are deliberately and artificially 'grown', be considered as prey in any ecological sense? (rgoudie also questions your statement in post #1037)

1) You never bothered to research how many of the supposed "herbivorous" traits of humans are also found in chimpanzee physiognomy - and chimps are, undisputedly, omnivores. My guess is that every "herbivorous" trait of humans is also found in chimps - a significant point which completely explodes this nonsense about humans being natural herbivores.
2) You define "prey" as something stalked and pounced on. Why? Humans seem to have a different method of obtaining prey. So?

that is a very good point (as is your key question "Then what do we want to be?")
i'm a bit surprised you have had to draw it to oneeye's attention though, since in post #784 he stated quite adamantly

My thesis all along has been, "Man cannot be classed with other animals, since man has a unique moral responsibility.

I really find oneeye's recent "If chimpanzees can do it, so can I!" to be somewhat in conflict with his original thesis.

You are quite right. Just as you do, I am not arguing my actual position. I do not believe that humans are essentially animals - which is why I believe that humans have the right to husband and consume herd animals. My argument targets those (probably the majority on the board) who believe that humans are merely another member of kingdom Animalia.

But either way you cut it, the end result is the same: If humans are a fundamentally different kind of creature than animalia, then it's quite appropriate for them to eat animals - for the same reason that humans may appropriately eat carrots. And, if humans are just another animal, then it's as appropriate for a human to go to the larder to pick up a chunk of meat as it is for a crocodile to do so.

 

[OneEye]

I'd be very interested in hearing what you think of the links I've provided. I look forward to hearing from you! :)

I don't mean to spurn your contribution, but I'm not going to do a lot more reading on this. I think that I understand the issue well enough - I know how these things work, and further reading and investigation cannot help my understanding of the matter.

The question that I have for you is the same question I posted above:

If meat were not factory farmed, would it be ethical to eat it?

If not, then the factory farming question has not bearing on this discussion.

If so, then you are free to eat meat - ethically. Just go to one of the many supermarkets that sell free range meat. Vote with your dollars!

 

[OneEye]

Here's a quote from one of the largest and most respected group of dieticians in the world:

--American Dietetic Association, June 2003 position paper

...yeah, politics is wonderful, ain't it? About as balanced as the APA.

This dogma - though developed in response to real health problems - was just a grasping at a straw. The real culprit in American diets is not animal products, it's sugar, sweeteners, and white flour. Dr. Atkins' work is helping to make this clear.