Food ethics: How do you choose what species are morally wrong to eat?

@georgeob1,

Submarines and targets.

0 Replies

I never knew a Jesuit, or any of their minions, who thought he had ever been anything but the very soul of intellectual moderation . . .

(Do i need to mention irony here?)

0 Replies

Setanta understands.

0 Replies

Still trying to recover from the photo of China's cat-meat market.

1 Reply

@BorisKitten,

I can see the naturalness of eating cats, dogs, other pet creatures, and on rare occasions humans (though it is hard to imagine).
Where human folly of many kinds has made animals near extinct before their natural time, skewing a whole ecology, then I'm strongly against hunting them, much less eating them.

I suppose we humans and the world could be better off if more of us could learn to savor cockroaches.

2 Replies

Osso wrote:

I suppose we humans and the world could be better off if more of us could learn to savor cockroaches.

Yeah, but along with a nice Valpolicella..

1 Reply

@Francis,

For me it would take some ice cold grappa.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

You're right, Osso... cockroaches as food! That would solve a lot of problems.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

On a practical level, I've hardly eaten any fish since I've been in New Mexico. I admit it is mostly because the local selection is so ridiculous - I looked today and it was pollock from China and I forget what from Thailand. The northwest US, a recent home, has a lot of sturm and drang going on re the water salmon need and the water farmers (newbies! very recent newbies) need, on which I have an opinion pro the salmon - but I just noticed this is a peak year for steelhead and river salmon are looking numerous, not that I chased much info about those down. I'm used to wild fresh fish not eaten often. I did buy some shrimp of mystery origin today to make dumplings, but forgive myself for now. It takes some weaning..

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

There's an institute, or some such, that lists which fish are endangered, as a buying guide, and I'm sure it's already been linked on a2k, perhaps even on this thread - just not handy right now.

0 Replies

@Eorl,

Yep. That's probably true of all morals, don't you think? Morals are kind of a luxury -- once your survival is not in question, then you can start with the morals. I think stealing is morally wrong, but if I needed to steal to save my daughter's life (whether food or medical treatment or whatever, if I knew it was necessary and knew that it would keep her alive), I would. Etc.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

Yeah, I noticed you're kind of attached to your daughter. Talk about nuts.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Indeed. In think the strength of the moral imperative differs from individual to individual, but I think the luxury component is a big one, even in small ways on a day to day basis. We'd all prefer to buy organic free range locally grown everything and walk home with it, right? Or at least drive it home in a Prius.

2 Replies

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

We'd all prefer to buy organic free range locally grown everything and walk home with it, right? Or at least drive it home in a Prius.

I'll be smiling for days thinking about these two sentences.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

They're nice sentences!

0 Replies

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

Indeed. In think the strength of the moral imperative differs from individual to individual, but I think the luxury component is a big one, even in small ways on a day to day basis. We'd all prefer to buy organic free range locally grown everything and walk home with it, right? Or at least drive it home in a Prius.

But if we CAN cause less suffering, do you think we SHOULD?

2 Replies

@dlowan,

Sure, I'm just saying each persons priorities are different. A CEO might buy the cheapest eggs, because he'd be a fool to pay more than he had to, while a pensioner will go without eggs rather than let the chickens suffer an her account.
Whether there's an objective standard to be applied to all is the big question. (and I think it's the question Robert is asking)

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Really? Why? Whadid-I-do? Am I missing something silly? Confused

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

Sure, I'm just saying each persons priorities are different. A CEO might buy the cheapest eggs, because he'd be a fool to pay more than he had to, while a pensioner will go without eggs rather than let the chickens suffer an her account.
Whether there's an objective standard to be applied to all is the big question. (and I think it's the question Robert is asking)

Or just to know what the ethical basis of what each of us chooses is.

Hey...I'd consider the CEO a total arsehole for NOT lessening suffering. S/He can bloody well afford to!

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

But if we CAN cause less suffering, do you think we SHOULD?

I think all sorts of people should do all sorts of things that they can do.

What gives me/my opinions any more value than the people who don't want to do those things I think they should? (and that I'm sure/can prove would benefit them in some way)

1 Reply

Food ethics: How do you choose what species are morally wrong to eat?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know