12
   

Animals, Eating Meat and Moral Standing

 
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 03:02 pm
@Setanta,
I edited to write about the gardening bit, before I'd read your post. I agree totally. No argument from me.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 03:09 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
Isn't it a bit narcissistic to claim that others do something just to attempt to have an effect on you?

Sorry for not getting back to you fa, but we went to a chickn bake up at Bart Twp.
My only statement is that I as a meatatarian, DIIDNT START THIS THREAD. This is about the 4th such thread where some wag dofs a toga , stands up on the pedestal and begins the tired old chestnut of how superior you veggiephagiacs are and how animals are our partners on the planet. Thats just rubbish.
I would never think of starting some topic that assumes "moral standing" is at issue with what you eat for lunch.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 03:14 pm
@Ceili,
Aw shucks . . . i'm disappointed . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 03:14 pm
Say, are you Chinese er somethin'?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 03:29 pm
@Ceili,
No need to be snotty, Ceili. Had I made a similar mistake I would have welcomed a correction.

Regarding the ivory tower, it's not me who lives there. I suspect you're still PO'ed about the correction you received on the language issue. That advice was a basic, down to earth description of how language actually works. It isn't any ivory tower stuff.

That is found in the ideas you presented that people who speak a different dialect of English from the one you do are "wrong". I hope you read the posts I put there after.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 03:32 pm
@Thomas,
Good point on checking your sources. I grabbed mushrooms out of my head. I could have as easily choose whole carrots or celery (etc).

A
R
T
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 03:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
"I see consuming other animals as the fulfillment of my animal self, " he says as he creeps steathily through the Safeway aisles seeking his prey.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 03:38 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
Good point on checking your sources. I grabbed mushrooms out of my head. I could have as easily choose whole carrots or celery (etc).

And they would have had the same problem. Neither carrots nor celery produce vitamin B12 from their own metabolism, or through any bacteria that live in them. If they contain any vitamin B12, it's through supplements they ingest through the soil they grow in. You might as well eat the supplement yourself. That way, at least you know you've eaten it, and how much.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 03:49 pm
@bigstew,
bigstew wrote:

Quote:
Being that I don't feel a person's choice to eat or not eat animal product resolves to a singular moral/ethical fulcrum, I don't feel I miss "the point." people may have diverse reasons to make any choice. A person may not eat meat simply because they dislike it. This person is not missing the point.


Here's the thing. When we talk about morality, we talk about those things which fall within morality's scope. Humans obviously fall within this scope, and for my reasons stated, so should animals.

I haven't disagreed, nor have I contradicted this.

bigstew wrote:

I disagree that indirect reasons are enough for the moral considerability of animals.

I think actions not reasoning are a greater metric of moral considerability. Besides, I've spelling it out, and the direct cruelty to an animal by my hands is not something I can do. My own internal guidance DOES grant animals moral standing. The difference is that after I realize that I lack the capacity to do it, I do not run to the grocery for the end product.

bigstew wrote:

If a cat is kicked down the road, it is wrong because the cat is harmed, not because it might make other humans nearby upset. The cat itself has direct standing.

I don't disagree. This is not in conflict with anything I've said.

bigstew wrote:

Given then a moral considerability of animals (which is the fundamental issue at hand), the choices we make and how our actions affect animals must be taken into account, if we take their interests to be important.

Hence action. Hence an alteration of my lifestyle.

bigstew wrote:

The reasons you state don't speak to that fundamental issue. In other words, it is poor justification (but don't get me wrong, they are still important for other reasons, nonetheless).

I'd like to know what a poor justification means. In words alone, it summons in my brain the idea that you believe my reasons are somehow lacking foundation. My views include animals having moral standing, but you seem to take issue with the fact that moral standing alone was not what drove my lifestyle change. In my mind, a strong justification is built robustly on many pillars.

Here's a thought experiment. Ever watch Star Trek? From the Next Generation on, the show featured a piece of technology that produced all food on the ship. Replicators. They recreated molecule for molecule a dish on an atomic level. The end product being not from animal suffering, but could contain animal proteins. Essentially, it would be meat. Would you eat it? Given the idea of moral standing alone, there would be no basis for objection since no suffering took place to create such a meal. If however, you had reservations about health, or how resource intensive one of these machines are, you may elect to still not eat the meat. So which of our views holds under this? We can explore the notion that livestock farming will become more eco-friendly, and I'll be grateful for that. It won't make me want to eat meat though. So where is the weakness?

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 03:52 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

I honestly think that if most people had to catch and kill their own food, most animals would suffer a great deal more than they do now. We leave certain things to the experts for obvious reasons. Hell, most people can't even grow a garden. They'd starve by most that thinking...

I think we should all move forward with the understanding that tribal existence is over and that our food practices today are in the grocery store or restaurant. Certainly some continue to practice both hunting and natural gathering, but we shouldn't apply their context to our decisions.

A
R
T
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 04:02 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
tribal existence is over and that our food practices today are in the grocery store or restaurant.
Would you deny the chosen dietary habits and laws of populations who dont live like you? Theres ahell of a lot of native populations in the world. (what about farmers?)

We survive on our own lamb and beef. (We dont eat our chickens because they provide us with eggs and entertainment)
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 04:03 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Isn't it a bit narcissistic to claim that others do something just to attempt to have an effect on you?

Sorry for not getting back to you fa, but we went to a chickn bake up at Bart Twp.

Quip noted. Can't have thin skin as a vegan. Gotta deal with quips daily.

farmerman wrote:

My only statement is that I as a meatatarian, DIIDNT START THIS THREAD.

Correct. No omnivore started a thread on food ethics. Starting a thread however is not an insult, and I think OP started it respectfully. If you disagree, how could they have started it in a way that you approve?

farmerman wrote:

This is about the 4th such thread where some wag dofs a toga , stands up on the pedestal and begins the tired old chestnut of how superior you veggiephagiacs are and how animals are our partners on the planet. Thats just rubbish.

Because you say so. Tell me how it's rubbish.

Note to self: buy a toga.

farmerman wrote:

I would never think of starting some topic that assumes "moral standing" is at issue with what you eat for lunch.

Because you would not, you think others may not? Cannot the status quo be challenged? Nobody forced you to join in discussion. You're going out of your way to get offended by provoking others.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 04:06 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

failures art wrote:
Good point on checking your sources. I grabbed mushrooms out of my head. I could have as easily choose whole carrots or celery (etc).

And they would have had the same problem. Neither carrots nor celery produce vitamin B12 from their own metabolism, or through any bacteria that live in them. If they contain any vitamin B12, it's through supplements they ingest through the soil they grow in. You might as well eat the supplement yourself. That way, at least you know you've eaten it, and how much.

Something I keep in my mind I assure you. On my regular doctor visits, I get blood work done to see how my nutrient levels are. I've not ever had a hard time meeting all levels. All nutrients in tolerance.

If for whatever reason, that were to change, supplements would be a fine alternative. I've not required them so far.

A
R
T
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 04:06 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
B12 isn't from animals either. It's from bacteria.
In nature , bacteria provide one pathway of B vitamin assimilation. In animals there are a number of direct pathways that involve production by specific organs.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 04:58 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
tribal existence is over and that our food practices today are in the grocery store or restaurant.
Would you deny the chosen dietary habits and laws of populations who dont live like you? Theres ahell of a lot of native populations in the world. (what about farmers?)

We survive on our own lamb and beef. (We dont eat our chickens because they provide us with eggs and entertainment)

I don't deny anyone anything in this culture or another.

A
R
T
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 05:05 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
Something I keep in my mind I assure you. On my regular doctor visits, I get blood work done to see how my nutrient levels are. I've not ever had a hard time meeting all levels. All nutrients in tolerance.

I'm sure they are. Your vitamin B12 deposits were filled up when you switched diets a year ago, and they take over five years to deplete. You should be fine as long as you still have this point in mind five years from now---or whenever you and your vegan girlfriend decide to have a baby. Your baby will be born with empty B12 deposits, and will definitely need supplements to develop normally.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 05:15 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
I don't deny anyone anything in this culture or another.


Yet you make a broad statement as this
Quote:
tribal existence is over and that our food practices today are in the grocery store or restaurant.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 05:33 pm
@bigstew,
bigstew wrote:

Quote:
Eating meat lies outside of the field of ethics, I would think. Eating meat, for many animals and men, is an act of survival, not choice. That we inject our own scruples into the act is to afford luxury


Eating meat is not necessary. More than 700 million tons of grain and corn, not to mention 1/3 of the global soy (250 million tons) supply is used to feed factory farmed animals. Now keep in mind that animals can only turn a small fraction of such feed calories into meat calories. The result is the opposite of what you claim. By relying on meat you are supporting a vastly inefficient practice, when such feed could be supplied to the impoverished 1.4 billion humans.

Quote:
That said, I am an animal lover, who hates to see animals getting mistreated. If I had to personally kill for meat, I would down lots more vegetables. But I don't view my sentiments from a moral viewpoint, because we all are food, in one way or another.


I find this an interesting passage. If you had to kill for meat, you wouldn't eat as much. Yet instead you will pay for someone to do it for you, because in essence, that is the logical outcome. In addition, you are against animal cruelty, yet factory farming is well known to cause quite alot of suffering for animals, but yet you will pay for someone to do that as well. Where is the basic integrity in that?

Your point about the scope of morality is fundamentally flawed in my viewpoint. Would you be pre pared to allow humans to be farmed for meat under the same conditions? If not, why not?


I did not say I like cruel farming methods used on food animals. I try to get around that sort of thing as much as possible.

There are many "experts" that will argue with you about the good benefits from humans eating soy.

I did not argue from efficiency, anyway. The most efficient foods and the most deadly, are processed foods.

Not wanting to kill my own food is personal issues, not really relating to the central theme.

Injecting the notion of cannibalism is like a religious person asking an atheist if he wants his mother to burn in hell.
bigstew
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 05:40 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
So, no, eating meat is not a necessary condition, it's a choice.


If I misinterpeted you than my apologies. You did say that meat or plants are needed in order to survive, and both are implicitly required by your proposition, but still, if that is not the case lets move on.

Quote:
You say that plants are not sentient. You say that they do not feel pleasure, pain, happiness or regret. You say that they are not social beings. You know this how? Without a reasonable basis for these ipse dixit claims on your part (which you have not provided), you are speaking ex cathedra, and your claims have no more merit than anyone else's opinion.


If common sense scientific knowledge with you, that plants don't have sentience in any of the morally relevant senses, than we arn't going to far. Further, I highly doubt many are going to be persuaded by your claim plants are sentient in any morally relevant sense. This is a normative argument, remember.
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 05:43 pm
@Ceili,
Quote:
I honestly think that if most people had to catch and kill their own food, most animals would suffer a great deal more than they do now.


But notice the hidden assumption in your sentence. Why do people have to catch and kill their own food period (in general sense)? Certain parts of the world people might have to, and are quite adept at it whiletrying to minimize the suffering of the animal, but do North Americans, for example, need to?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

is there a fundamental value that we all share? - Discussion by existential potential
The ethics of killing the dead - Discussion by joefromchicago
Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials - Discussion by failures art
The Watchmen Dilemma - Discussion by Sentience
What is your fundamental moral compass? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
The Trolley Problem - Discussion by joefromchicago
Keep a $900 Computer I Didn't Buy? - Question by NathanCooperJones
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 04:40:55