Animals, Eating Meat and Moral Standing

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I also wonder if we can't break this equation down a little more morally. I think of it like this:

Assertion: animals are morally correct to try and eat one another.

I think it would be hard to argue against that point.

No, actually it's quite easy to argue against that point. Your assertion that animals are "morally correct" is an unsupported assumption. What does it mean for a non-human animal to be "morally correct?"

I would say, for an animal to act according to its' nature. I do realize that questions or morality don't typically apply to non-human animals, but I'm trying to have a fun conversation.

For example: is it morally wrong - or in any way incorrect behavior - for a pack of wolves to hunt and kill a human they find by themselves in the frozen north? I submit that it is not. In the same fashion, I submit that it is not wrong for me to hunt or eat any animal I find within my territory - outside of questions of practicality.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would say, for an animal to act according to its' nature. I do realize that questions or morality don't typically apply to non-human animals, but I'm trying to have a fun conversation.

But why is that moral? If "acting morally" is the same thing as "acting naturally," then there's really no reason to have a category called "morality." Or is it possible for an animal to act naturally and not act morally?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For example: is it morally wrong - or in any way incorrect behavior - for a pack of wolves to hunt and kill a human they find by themselves in the frozen north?

I agree it's not immoral for wolves to kill a human, but then it's not moral either. It's non-moral.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

I agree it's not immoral for wolves to kill a human, but then it's not moral either. It's non-moral.

Fine, but the same applies to me killing and eating things. It's not a moral question, unless the question becomes one of practicality and our 'moral' obligation to choose the most practical solution to a problem.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Morality is at least a dual proposition, for humans. We anthropomorphise nature and we make friends with animals. We place ourselves in the other entities' flesh, so that when it suffers, we also suffer. But, we have a split personality. We can love a chicken or a pig, but we can eat a chicken or a pig, because we compartmentalize.

Say what? Sorry edgar, but I am sort of lost as to the cogency of your argument. Anthropomorphising is one thing, recognizing the interests of animals is another. We can understand how an animal suffers because like animals, we are similar in very important ways. Simple desires such as the social company of others or the avoidance of pain are things we value, and we recognize (or at least ought to recognize) the value of these interests in animals as well. That is not Anthropomorphising. That is recognizing a reason in the deliberation of how we ought to act.

When you talk about compartmentalizing, it is simply like saying ignorance is bliss. We can simply ignore the interests of others because when it comes down to it, according to the logic of your premises, self interest rules all. As long as you can ignore what you do, nothing else matters. That is absurd though because what nmakes raping a woman wrong so long as I can compartmentalize it, or any other obviously wrong act for that matter. Compartmentalizing makes no sense, morally speaking. The whole purpose of ethics is to transcend self interest.

Quote:

I would be willing to bet most vegetarians would revert to meat eating in an instant, if the best, most tasty plants were no longer available.

That is a mighty big assumption on your part, one that clearly begs the question. How do you know that for certain, or at least have a reasonable expectation? Further, does that prediction somehow speak against the claim that animals ought to have moral standing. Really, you are just trying to assume what people's tastes are, and predict a state of affairs based on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fine, but the same applies to me killing and eating things. It's not a moral question, unless the question becomes one of practicality and our 'moral' obligation to choose the most practical solution to a problem.

Or, in other words, it is not a moral question unless it's a moral question. I quite agree.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

What is it about their capacity to suffer that is morally significant?

It is not a trivial fact to be in pain (and lets be clear, we are talking about unecessary suffering), nor to have other important interests denied to you e.g. social company of others. These are interests that matter to you (and people in general), and that without good reason, ought not to be denied.

Ethically speaking, what is the justification for extending the same concern to human beings, but not animals?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

All of this still reduces to desire, not neccesity.

Cyclopticorn wrote:

I define what's a necessity for me, not anyone else.

You do not, nor do I. We do not get to choose what life ingredients are necessary. These are what are truly inherent in our DNA. You elect to eat meat out of desire not neccesity.

As for your cats, you are meat as well. They aren't trying to kill you and eat you. However, if you die in your house and they don't get food, they'll eat your face off given enough time.

Cyclopticorn wrote:

Meat tastes far, far better than everything else I eat and something in my brain says 'this is what you should be eating.' That's nature, baby. Why fight it?

1) Can you demonstrate how meat quantifiably tastes better than all other things?
2) It may not be other's nature to think "this is what I should be eating."

To the point of the thread, if you believe animals deserve moral standing or you are put off by animal cruelty, perhaps self indulgence is not worth it to others. Especially, if they don't need to.

Consider the moral considerations of theft. Do we not conclude that theft has different moral outcomes based on the person's situation? Should the hungry thief who steals his loaf of bread, be put on par with the wealthy man who steals out of self indulgence? I believe necessity is a factor in my moral barometer.

Cyclopticorn wrote:

My desire to eat meat is a natural part of me; I didn't create the desire. It wasn't trained up by my parents.

Are you sure? Do you mean to tell me that your diet norms do not reflect what was taught to you? You think that eating meat has nothing to do with that?

Cyclopticorn wrote:

There's Life and then there's Living. You would stay alive if I locked you in a 10x10' box, piped in food, fresh air and water, piped out waste, and that's it. All the requirements for your existence would be present. You would be alive. But you wouldn't be Living.

This is kind of an appeal to extremes. It's a sort of paycheck-to-paycheck argument about the substance of life and intellectual fulfillment. I lived as an omnivore for almost all of my life. I know what that is like, and I know what my life now is like. I do not miss that old life, nor do I feel I lack enjoyment in my new one. In short, I'm living quite well, and I feel the things I gave up have given me a greater appreciation for the things I have.

I'm not concerned with how others treat animals, I'm concerned with how I do.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If a human hunts, kills, and eats other humans are they acting nature on their nature? Are these same traits now within moral consideration?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

As for your cats, you are meat as well. They aren't trying to kill you and eat you. However, if you die in your house and they don't get food, they'll eat your face off given enough time.

So true.

0 Replies

@failures art,

I'm really surprised that you didn't respond to this point:

Quote:

If you offered a cat fresh meat every day, or kitty kibble which is nutritionally balanced, which one do you think they will choose? I own two cats and already know the answer, so it's sort of a rhetorical question. They choose the fresh meat. Because it tastes far, far better and something in their brain says 'this is the stuff to eat!'

As the fact that human nature reflects pretty much all of animal nature on this exact point is sort of dead on in this discussion. My preference for meat is normal and reflected by other omnivores, despite the fact that we can get on without it - if we have to.

Quote:

1) Can you demonstrate how meat quantifiably tastes better than all other things?

I can report on it, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'demonstrate.' Its' an opinion, which is informed by my personal blood chemistry - and that of most others it seems.

Quote:

Are you sure? Do you mean to tell me that your diet norms do not reflect what was taught to you? You think that eating meat has nothing to do with that?

No, I don't think it has much to do with it. The vast, vast majority of people on the planet eat meat when given a choice to do so. That tells me that it's not a factor of a specific cultural upbringing, unless pretty much everyone's culture is bringing us up the same way, which says something itself.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I agree it's not immoral for wolves to kill a human, but then it's not moral either. It's non-moral.

Fine, but the same applies to me killing and eating things. It's not a moral question, unless the question becomes one of practicality and our 'moral' obligation to choose the most practical solution to a problem.

Case one: If a deer hunter goes out and shoots a deer and brings it home.
Case two: The deer hunter goes out and shoots dozens of deer, brings home one, leaves the others to rot.

Does the practicality of the actions have no bearing on the morality of them? Is it cruel to kill for sake of killing? If you did not have to kill the deer to eat at all, why kill the deer. Because you want to.

Do we wish to make desire is not a justification or moral defense?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@bigstew,

bigstew wrote:

It is not a trivial fact to be in pain (and lets be clear, we are talking about unecessary suffering), nor to have other important interests denied to you e.g. social company of others. These are interests that matter to you (and people in general), and that without good reason, ought not to be denied.

I agree that all of those things are important, but why are they morally significant? After all, it may be important to me that I put on my left shoe before I put on my right shoe, but that doesn't mean it's morally significant that I put on my left shoe first.

bigstew wrote:

Ethically speaking, what is the justification for extending the same concern to human beings, but not animals?

You tell me. You're the one trying to justify your position, but after reading this thread I still have no idea what that position might be.

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

If a human hunts, kills, and eats other humans are they acting nature on their nature? Are these same traits now within moral consideration?

A
R
T

Yes - I have no problem with cannibalism, outside of practical societal concerns of maintaining stability. I see nothing wrong with it at all.

I tell you this, and I hope that you understand I'm serious when I say it: I really took Stranger in a Strange Land to heart. I would like nothing better, after my death, than to be eaten by those who loved me, so that I could continue as a part of their bodies.

Whoops, I see you did answer my cat question:

Quote:

As for your cats, you are meat as well. They aren't trying to kill you and eat you. However, if you die in your house and they don't get food, they'll eat your face off given enough time.

And rightly so! The only reason my cat doesn't eat me is the fact that our sizes aren't transposed. If they were - they would.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

A juxtaposition: Ridiculing vegetarians, and suggesting that you are persecuted.

READ THE DAMN TITLE OF THIS THREAD PLEASE. Its about 1 of 4 that starts with the "subhuman character of meat eaters. A number of folks tried to backpedal but you should just stop being so damn militant and LET people be on their own. I dont market anything to veggiephagiacs. Its a loss leader.

AS far as B12 only from bacteria, well you sorta get it but not completely. THE factory for B12 (and only B12) is via flora thatmetabolize the cobalt salts and include it in the mole structure. These "flora" are called FACULTATIVE because they live in the guts of rumens, perisodactyls, cervids and to a minimal amount, porcids. They dont live in the guts of rodents or birds or hominids (who need external sourcse for Vit B12. Cows have abundant facultative flora that are part of their ruminant digestive system. Yes its bacteri, but a cow extracts vitamin B12 via these bacteria. Otherwise the cow would suffer and waste away.

Quote:

When it was recognized that cobalt was 4.4% of the molecular weight of vitamin B12 and that rumen bacteria could efficiently synthesize B12, these differences started to make sense. Cobalt deficiency in ruminants leads to a vitamin B12 deficiency that is corrected with cobalt supplementation. Because monogastric animals do not have a bacterial population in the gut that can synthesize sufficient vitamin B12, cobalt supplementation is ineffective. Monogastric animals must have vitamin B12 in their diet or practice coprophagy to prevent a deficiency. In the wild, ingestion of feces is common among monogastric animals. Many of the B vitamins including B12 are synthesized as a result of bacterial fermentation in the large intestine, but B12 is excreted because it must be bound by an intrinsic factor produced in the stomach before it can be absorbed. Coprophagy is one means of obtaining the B vitamins that are deficient in the basal diet. Clear evidence of a cobalt requirement independent of the B12 requirement has not been documented in monogastric animals. Ruminant feces are an excellent source of vitamin B12. In the 1930s, it was observed that feeding pigs and cattle together in the same pen improved the health and performance of the pigs, if they were not fed animal proteins. We now know that pigs on plant-based diets were deficient in vitamin B12. When cattle and pigs were in the same pen, the pigs pick up enough B12 from the cattle feces to prevent the deficiency

Source: GOATWORLD. A mag dedicated to goat health.

Several diseases were learned about and the sources of vitamins based upon deficiencies in the soil or presence in the soils anthe concentration of cobalt by the gut flora in cattle.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

You're committing a fallacy known as poisoning the well

And you are guilty of a fallacy called
talking out of ones ass

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm really surprised that you didn't respond to this point:

Quote:
If you offered a cat fresh meat every day, or kitty kibble which is nutritionally balanced, which one do you think they will choose? I own two cats and already know the answer, so it's sort of a rhetorical question. They choose the fresh meat. Because it tastes far, far better and something in their brain says 'this is the stuff to eat!'

I spoke to it implicitly when I discussed your cat eating your face, but I'll reply more explicitly.

Both the kitty kibble and the fresh meat are animal products. If you offer me a apple flavored thing or an apple, I'm probably going to opt for the apple. Beyond that, you've chosen an example where the animal in question (the cat) lives in an environment entirely controlled by you. In essence, the cat exists in a survival state that you manage for it.

If I put a raw steak and an apple in front of you, I doubt you'd tear into the raw steak like your cat would.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As the fact that human nature reflects pretty much all of animal nature on this exact point is sort of dead on in this discussion. My preference for meat is normal and reflected by other omnivores, despite the fact that we can get on without it - if we have to.

Quote:

1) Can you demonstrate how meat quantifiably tastes better than all other things?

I can report on it, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'demonstrate.' Its' an opinion, which is informed by my personal blood chemistry - and that of most others it seems.

This is what I was getting at. Your applying a subjective measure to an objective criteria. What we need to live is not a matter of our subjections. Our bio-chemestry does not require our opinions.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Are you sure? Do you mean to tell me that your diet norms do not reflect what was taught to you? You think that eating meat has nothing to do with that?

No, I don't think it has much to do with it. The vast, vast majority of people on the planet eat meat when given a choice to do so. That tells me that it's not a factor of a specific cultural upbringing, unless pretty much everyone's culture is bringing us up the same way, which says something itself.

I'm not sure about this theoretical example you're making here. You have to remember that the accessibility to meat was largely unavailable to anyone who wasn't very rich for most of human history. Meat made up a precious small part of cultural foods. It has only been since the industrial revolution that we saw commoners given such luxury items like meat. Meat itself was a status symbol. Out of poverty, we began rewarding ourselves more and more and popular dishes featuring meat became more prevalent.

Take sushi for example. It has experienced two noteworthy evolutions. The most recent was when sushi met the American market and gourmet maki rolls took the dining world by storm. Previously, we would have at least assumed sushi had something to do with raw fish. This too is false. Nigiri sushi became popular as Japan moved into the industrial age out of it's old caste roots. The addition of fish (sashimi) gave the traditional dish a greater status. Traditionally, sushi was prepared with vegetables (like pickled radish or cucumber). The word "sushi" itself mean vinegared rice. What we see here is that in modern day we assume some sort of continuity with sushi as a part of Japanese tradition. The truth is that it is far from it's ancestor and is a product of cultural evolution. Hell, did the original pizza from Italy even have cheese on it?

My point here is don't underestimate how much our diet reflects desire, and not our nature. We were raised thinking this is the norm, but there is nothing wrong with challenging that.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
A juxtaposition: Ridiculing vegetarians, and suggesting that you are persecuted.

READ THE DAMN TITLE OF THIS THREAD PLEASE.

Yes. The title is: "Animals, Eating Meat and Moral Standing."

If this alone is what you consider an attack, your a bit thin-skinned. How could the author have titled the thread in a manner you'd approve of?

farmerman wrote:

Its about 1 of 4 that starts with the "subhuman character of meat eaters. A number of folks tried to backpedal but you should just stop being so damn militant and LET people be on their own. I dont market anything to veggiephagiacs. Its a loss leader.

Actually, the thread began with:

Big Stew wrote:

Though there are various issues related to animals e.g. animal experimentation, zoos, use in consumer goods etc., I thought honing in on the ethics of meat eating might generate good discussion.

Which doesn't claim meat eaters are of sub-human character at all. It simply declares that this could be a good discussion.

The rest of the post invites us with an initial question:

Big Stew wrote:

So, do you think meat eating is ethical? If so, why? If not, why not? In addition, does context matter, or do we treat all cases involving animals the same? (yes or no answers should be justified, considering this is a normative argument)

Which still doesn't call you a sub-human. It invites your opinion even if you find no moral objection to eating meat.

Lastly, the author in full disclosure states their own view and what they plan to defend:

Big Stew wrote:

I will start by acknowledging that: (i) I am a vegetarian, and will be (ii) defending the view that animals ought to obtain direct moral standing, and (iii) at the very least certain practices used to produce meat e.g. factory farming are wrong and ought to be stopped. Further, rather than suppose any of the major moral theories e.g. utiltarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, I propose an (iv) incompletely theorized argument in that particular issues may remain unresolved, but at a general level we can agree on some things (animal cruelty is wrong).

If you have an alternate point of view, there's nothing wrong with sharing it. certainly my view is different than Big Stew's. Are you opposed to a discussion on this topic?

farmerman wrote:

AS far as B12 only from bacteria, well you sorta get it but not completely. THE factory for B12 (and only B12) is via flora thatmetabolize the cobalt salts and include it in the mole structure. These "flora" are called FACULTATIVE because they live in the guts of rumens, perisodactyls, cervids and porcids. They dont live in the guts of rodents or birds or hominids (who need external sourcse for Vit B12. Cows have abundant facultative flora that are part of their ruminant digestive system. Yes its bacteri, but a cow extracts vitamin B12 via these bacteria. Otherwise the cow wopuld suffer also.

Vit B6 and others are directly coenzymes in metabolic processes in specific areas of the bodies of many mammals and birds.

Dude. Soil. Produce. I don't need your holy cow for my vitamins. If I ever do find I need some, I can get it elsewhere as Thomas has pointed out as well.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Then now take this further. The man kills but does not eat. Did anything change? If so, what?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

My point here is don't underestimate how much our diet reflects desire, and not our nature. We were raised thinking this is the norm, but there is nothing wrong with challenging that.

Our desire reflects our nature.

I don't care what anyone decides to eat - spin yer wheels, yaknow - but I don't understand why others have to care what I eat. As if my decisions are morally wrong. I'm not specifically accusing you of this at all, but surely you are aware that typically there is an amount of judgment that goes hand-in-hand with asceticism in any form - such as vegetarianism or veganism.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Then now take this further. The man kills but does not eat. Did anything change? If so, what?

A
R
T

Well, what was the purpose behind his killing?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Animals, Eating Meat and Moral Standing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know