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

@dlowan,

Eating habits related to what is there... it would make sense that people who could thrive on that would reproduce.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

This was your thread and in that respect Ive been consistent in reminding you that YOUVE chosen the phrase "morally right" You seem to ignore your own bandstanding an issue based on one criteria (yours). Ive said that I reject the moral issue and want to get back to sustainability as the criteria. (Youve backed off from the sustainability issue by claiming that someone "ran you off" from another thread.

What are you on about? Use whatever criteria you want, but this thread is about outlining your own morals and your proposed ethics. I've only said that my own criteria is sustainability and you are free to pick whatever yours may be, as soon as you figure out from one of the several people who've now tried to explain to you what the thread is about.

Quote:

Morality got nothing to do with it. thats your choice of words chosen (IMHO) to raise your soapbox a little higher than the rest of us.

No, that just happens to be the words people picked a long time ago to describe branches of philosophy that this falls under.

This is a thread about applied ethics. This is a straightforward philosophical discussion about applied ethics and food. Just because you can't seem to make head or tail of it and can't figure out how to approach it doesn't mean it's a "soapbox" it just means I want to discuss ethics with those who are capable of doing so.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
You agreed with the position that regardless of conservation issues whales should not be killed.
BULLSHIT.

Sigh. It's not like what you said isn't archived on the forum farmerman. I said:

Robert Gentel wrote:

They are very different issues from a matter of conservation. But msolga isn't concerned with conservation specifically, she wants no whales to be killed period.

And you said:

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
she wants no whales to be killed period

, and I agree with her.

You later went on to express your support for the position of whales as a planetary mascot worthy of protection and said that only your fallback position was that sustainability was the criteria and that cultural traditions were acceptable exceptions.

This is all there in the thread, and anyone can go and see for themselves. If this is no longer your position that's fine, but don't call bullshit just to lay claim to an elusive consistency.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

whales as a planetary mascot

May I remind you that this was a term you invented, I merely made furn of it and then agreed with msolgas POSITION for her.

I agree that anyone can go back and read what each has said in total and what some of us do when we "quote mine" out of context. Im not going to carry on further because my points were clear to me and several others.

Killing animals is a carrying capacity issue, not a moral one

Killing animals for food from a "POOL" of husbanded and herded organisms and then disclaiming any support of that practice is illogical to me.

Vegetarianism based upon a mantra of "save the veals" is also illogical to me

Dont make it appear that my point in this debate is anything less than the above . Even when I agree that whales are "cute", I followed up with a statement that I would have to reluctantly accept whaling for FOOD if it was done truly sustainably AND the culture doing it had a decent tradition of whaling (Japanese IMHO , do not)

These are my points and I dont believe Ive deviated from them. SO either we discuss the issues from our respective bases, or else we try to cast about assigning different stands to eah other (Like my astonishment at your engagement in "cross examination" tricks by dwelling on asides and trying to cobble up something that really doesnt represent someones main thrust.

WHen I agreed with msolga, we were engaged in a heted debate about the various reasons for not whaling. You were trying to , by extension of her arguments into the realm of the ridiculous, belittle her position. I agreed with her position because it was valid. It was not central to my position, BUT I AGREED WITH HERs.
One can agree with anothers logic but not make that logic central to ones own thesis. I do it all the time to diffuse the Thread buisters who try to make every discussion in to a doonybrook.
(Is that what youre trying to do here?)

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Justice isn't real, we made it up.

0 Replies

I have a question for you FM, if you happen to read this. Nearly 400 years ago, the Algonquian tribal leaders near Québec asked the church leaders to prohibit the sale of brandy to the tribes, because of the intense deleterious effect it had on the people. These tribes had no concentrated sugar source in their diets, and i've read ethnological texts which claim that alcohol affected them severely because they simply had no metabolic ability to deal with alcohol such as the Europeans did. It is claimed by ethnologists (or was by some of them in documents i read in university) that in fact, tribal leaders prepared for serious problems when they harvested berries in season, because the people would get all whacked-out on the sudden intake of sugars which they normally didn't get.

If that were true, would not the 20 or so generations since that time have been a sufficiently long time for those people (especially considering intermarriage with Europeans) to have changed all that?

0 Replies

Can I just say this, please? I deliberately haven't participated in either of your recent "food ethics" threads, Robert, because frankly, I had had enough of arguing at length with you on the "whales" thread. I am upset & quite angry to see my comments from that thread brought up here, as if farmer is responsible for my opinions. He isn't. They were my opinions. I had said all I wanted to say & wanted to leave it at that.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Killing animals is a carrying capacity issue, not a moral one

Humans are animals, too. Is killing humans a carrying capacity issue, not a moral issue? If not -- if killing us human animals is a moral issue -- why isn't killing non-human animals a moral issue, too?

farmerman wrote:

Vegetarianism based upon a mantra of "save the veals" is also illogical to me

Fortunately, we needn't discuss this strawman, because nobody has defended this mantra here.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

May I remind you that this was a term you invented, I merely made furn of it and then agreed with msolgas POSITION for her.

I'm not sure that I made that up either, but I'm not sure that it matters. Look, I don't care what you may have said before, or what you may have held as your position previously.

What is your position now. Do you want to prohibit killing and eating any animals that are not threatened as a species by doing so? If so, what is the reasoning you use for it?

Quote:

Killing animals is a carrying capacity issue, not a moral one

Whether or not a "carrying capacity" issue is a legitimate basis for proscription makes this an ethical issue. For example, we both happen to agree that it is not ethical to kill beyond what is sustainable but that doesn't mean everyone else thinks it's unethical (even if they agree with us about the basic facts about the conservation they may not feel like humans have a moral obligation in this regard).

Quote:

Dont make it appear that my point in this debate is anything less than the above .

I'll give as much importance to any point as it is due. I can't accept your demand that your point is elevated to an equal position as all other points.

Quote:

Even when I agree that whales are "cute", I followed up with a statement that I would have to reluctantly accept whaling for FOOD if it was done truly sustainably AND the culture doing it had a decent tradition of whaling (Japanese IMHO , do not)

So you clearly don't wish for whales to be killed even if it's sustainable (unless the cultural tradition exception meets your muster). I have not been misrepresenting you at all and there is a position you hold that does not want others to kill whales outside of the cultural tradition context.

Upon what do you base such ethics (and as long as you want others not to be allowed to whale it is an ethic)?

Quote:

One can agree with anothers logic but not make that logic central to ones own thesis.

So? I'm not asking you to make anything central to your thesis. I'm just asking you to defend the "logic" you've agreed to or at least just articulate how it works.

Quote:

I do it all the time to diffuse the Thread buisters who try to make every discussion in to a doonybrook.
(Is that what youre trying to do here?)

No, I'm just trying to get people to describe their ethics on food, and you seem to be trying to tell me what this thread is about and how I'm off topic again. That seems to be your stock and store.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I am upset & quite angry to see my comments from that thread brought up here, as if farmer is responsible for my opinions. He isn't. They were my opinions. I had said all I wanted to say & wanted to leave it at that.

He says he agrees with them but then accuses me of "bullshit" when I say he agrees with them. He claims to agree with this logic so it's not unreasonable to ask him to elaborate.

If you don't want to that's fine, I'm asking him why he agrees with your position and am not asking you to defend it here if you don't want to.

Hell, he doesn't have to either if he doesn't want to. But when he claims it's "bullshit" that he agreed to this I'm going to cite where it happened.

Look, I left that thread because you didn't like this kind of discussion but I'm going to continue it because I do. People who don't need not join.

1 Reply

I don't exactly think it's morally wrong to eat any species. The animals, fish and birds are here - they eat each other, we eat them. Jeez, we do progress intellectually. You live, you look around, study things, think and ponder things - then, you change a little tiny bit at a time every day. You make choices accordingly - then, it could be morally wrong but just for yourself, to do a lot of things differently.

Then, there's the health issue. People's bodies change, their thinking changes when they eat less or no red meat. You get LESS cancer, arthritis, gout, heart problems, gut, etc., etc. We evolutionize. I don't judge what other people do, though. When in the homes of others, or wherever, I eat what is served me.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I'll keep this very brief as I can have no desire to interrupt your discussion.

That "whaling" debate went on for days. It quite an intense, draining experience. For that reason I stayed away from your last two "food" threads. I had simply had enough for the time being. I did not appreciate being quoted here for the purpose of your argument with farmer. I thought your choice of quote was selective, for your the purposes of your arguments here. Given that I was not even participating in this particular discussion, I didn't appreciate that. I have absolutely no problem with you wanting to continue your discussion, Robert. That's your prerogative. But I would appreciate being left out of it, as I am not a participant here. You easily could have raised any concerns with my "position" without without directly referring to me. Dunno if this makes sense to you, but it does to me.

1 Reply

@msolga,

I'm sorry, it really doesn't. Out of respect for you feeling that way I left your thread and moved my discussion about ethics here but asking me not to even quote myself (I have not quoted you here, I quoted myself mentioning you in passing) on that thread is asking for more than a bit too much in my opinion, especially when I am only doing so in response to farmerman claiming that that particular exchange with him didn't exist.

I've bent over backwards as far as I think I can go. I'll avoid mentioning you if I can but can't help that the exchange in dispute here happened to do so.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Well, I've said what I wanted to say. But I didn't ask you to leave the "whales" thread. That was your decision. Looks like we disagree on this. I don't wish to side-track this thread any further than I have.

(By the way, I stand by what I said in the "whales" thread. (And by what farmer said, too, for that matter!) Wink

)

0 Replies

Umm.

I think in general, i wouldn't eat it if it's cute.
I'm sorry, thats a little shallow...
Smile

Personally, i wouldn't really call a chicken cute and cuddley, buuut a cat or a dog on the hand, i'd feel bad!

Shocked

2 Replies

@AbbieMcKenley,

AbbieMcKenley wrote:

Personally, i wouldn't really call a chicken cute and cuddley,

The adults no, but the chicks are adorable and when I raised them I couldn't help but remember just how cute they were, and they make a precious sound that I learned to imitate perfectly too. Chickens can be adorable! Look at this video and tell me you aren't rooting like hell for the chicken.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Does the /flash tag work on ALL flash movies/games?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No, but if you can get the swf to display the content directly in a url it usually does. You have to put the embed code together sometimes though, for e.g. on that video I had to combine two of the flash attributes for it to work.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Right, i'm just going to go all out an call my self vegitarian!
Wink

Haha.

0 Replies

@AbbieMcKenley,

AbbieMcKenley wrote:

Umm.

I think in general, i wouldn't eat it if it's cute.
I'm sorry, thats a little shallow...

Personally, i wouldn't really call a chicken cute and cuddley, buuut a cat or a dog on the hand, i'd feel bad!

You people have it all wrong!!

There is little as soothing as lying in the garden in the sun, watching ecstatic chooks dust-bathing, or or enjoying the sight and sound of them clucking softly and contentedly as they forage happily in the garden in the sun.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know