|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
Hi all! (First post - please be gentle)
I am not convinced that we can honestly justify killing/eating animals.But I also do not think that most people actually want to face the truth ("You can't handle the truth!" ) There appears to be a lot of cognitive dissonance around the eating of meat.e.g. My girlfriend is a carnivore (I'll use that term to stop any giggling from the back of the room). But if I suggest that she should visit a slaughter-house to see exactly how meat is processed: she refuses (and gets a little upset). Also, the amount of people that are able/willing to kill animals themselves is surprisingly small. I watched a 'Big Brother'-like TV show (years ago) where a group of people were put on a remote Scottish (I think) island and left to their own devices. One of them worked in a butchers, so he volunteered to kill the animals for eating. He managed to kill one cow before refusing to kill any more animals. Even the butcher couldn't face the killing. I guess that it must be a difficult thing to come to terms with. Imagine the shift in mind-set that is required to combine "I've eaten meat for my whole life" with "Killing animals is horrific". There seems to be lots of reasons to not eat meat, but as a society we can't seem to stop.Maybe the aliens will feel the same: "I know I shouldn't eat humans - but they are sooo moreish."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
Re: Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights I am not sure what 'difference' you are referring to, but it seems that you are agreeing with me that people have a problem reconciling the killing of animals and the eating of meat. I agree. People are no longer inured to the act of killing animals for meat.
The difference is, though, (at least in my opinion) that we are so far gone as a society from the necessity of doing the actual killing, and we are brought up seeing how cute and fuzzy animals are, we don't really concern ourselves with where it comes from. I assure you, ask any farmer if he gives two winks about slaughtering one of his pigs for morning bacon and his answer will be an astounding "hell no". The same goes for anyone who lives in the country (sorry, not to stereotype: but I'm referring to Deliverence types here). I believe you. Ask anyone that regularly kills animals: "Do you have a problem killing animals?" - I would be surprised if they said yes. But I would still suggest that they are in the minority.
We need meat. I have seen evidence to the contrary.
people have become too sissified/citified to do the killing nowadays. You think that people that can't kill harmless animals are timid, cowardly and effeminate? Hmm...This ended up looking like an attack on you, Hooah.I am not angry or shouting so please believe me - no offense is intended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
I'll just quote a selection of your sentences. If you feel I have moved them out of context then I will apologise and try again.
it is absolutely normal for us as a species from this planet to eat meat. I do not agree that 'it is normal' is a valid argument for us doing something. (It used to be normal to live in caves.)That seems to me to be a self perpetuating state. ...it is objectively inconsistent for us as sentient beings to eat other species.... I completely agree that morals/mores are subjective and closely linked to our culture....The morality that we show towards other species is very subjective... ...I don't believe in absolute morality... They are frequently contradictory and sometimes just plain nonsensical. But they are also not written in stone. We can (and do) frequently adjust our moral outlook. As an example in western culture: the wearing of fur has gone from being seen as a sign of wealth to being seen as an act of cruelty. And this change happened during a single lifetime. My original point was that a big reason why people (particularly in the richer countries) don't change their moral outlook is that people have a hard time accepting that what they are currently doing (and what they have always done) is actually abhorrent to them (i.e. kill animals).This causes them to rationalise their behaviour by saying things like "We have to eat meat" when that has been proved to not be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
JUC says:
I was not saying that being 'normal' is self-perpetuating.The fact that something is "normal" does not necessarily mean it is a self perpetuating state and we don't have a choice in whether or not we do it. Most of us now have the choice whether or not to eat meat, just as we have a choice whether or not to live in a cave. (Theoretically at least - it probably wouldn't be very easy for us to all go back to the caves!) I was saying that the argument "It is normal therefore we should continue doing it" is self-perpetuating. I say it is "normal" to underline the fact that it is natural and therefore not absolutely morally wrong to eat meat. If it wasn't morally wrong for us to eat meat in the past, can it still be morally wrong for us to do the same today?
I do think that 'normal' morals change (see paragraph below) - and often should change. As our understanding (of everything) increases we have more to consider when deciding the 'right' or 'wrong' of our actions.
That raises another interesting question: was there anything else in our past behaviour that we could say was morally right then, but is morally wrong now?
I would suggest that a lot of behaviour that was detrimental to women was morally fine in the past and is now morally wrong.
I don't agree with this at all. I don't think many people eat meat because they think they have to or because they think killing animals is wrong and don't want to admit it. They do it because it's part of their culture, it's habit, they enjoy it, and they may not know how to switch to a satisfactory vegetarian diet.
A lot of people refuse to be involved in the killing of animals - but they happily eat the meat because...they enjoy it? This seems like a conflict to me. That seems as hypocritical as a human-rights activist buying clothes made in sweat-shops. I think that people would rather argue that their current behaviour is not immoral, than have the discomfort of accepting that they were wrong to eat meat. Please note: this is related only to making the decision that eating meat is morally wrong.I do not think that people that stop eating meat because (e.g.) their doctor advised them to, would have the same issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
Hooah says:
Not pooing on the street is good for the species. It discourages disease.People also thinks its gross to shit outside, in the woods (as we used to for tens of thousands of years). And I hate treading in dog poo - so if humans did it on the streets too then I'd probably be very peeved! I've not done sufficient reading into vegan lifestyle, other than what I have read saying that it's not exactly healthy and they need to take vitamins to make up for not getting enough protein and iron.
I have heard similar things about veganism. But vegetarianism doesn't have the same problems.I am a vegetarian kinda fat guy Yes, because given the chance, those harmless creatures would rip your face off to survive.
I don't know how to break this to you gently - but the The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog does not exist. Edited by Pseudonym, : Extended a quote to contain what it was meant to contain in the first place!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
Bluejay says:
Simplistically: my moral viewpoint stems from the pain and suffering involved in the (IMO) unnecessary wholesale raising and slaughter of animals.But, you probably are convinced that we can honestly justify killing/eating plants, right? What's the difference, morally speaking? As plants do not have a central nervous system - I am unsure how they would feel pain/suffering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
JUC says:
I don't say it is morally OK for our ancestors to have eaten meat.So my point is why is it morally OK for our ancestors to have eaten meat in the past but not morally OK for us to do so today? You are the one saying that - and you are a meat eater, yes? Do you agree it was morally OK to eat meat in the past? If so, what have we suddenly become aware of that makes it immoral to do so today?
My answer to your first question is 'No, I do not'.Generally, people have been selfish to the point of stupidity in their treatment of this planet and everything on it. The destruction, death and extinction caused by man over the ages is something I find disgusting. Damn - I sound like a hippy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined:
|
Sorry for the late replies, but you all raised some very interesting points and I wanted to make sure I had the time to give them the consideration they deserved...and I went and had a nap (I blame my age).
Hyroglyphx says:
I agree that by nature we are omnivores. But we are continually moving beyond our base nature.But on another level I don't see it as tragic that humans are omnivores by nature. Just like every other predator, our eyes are located in the front of the skull as opposed to all prey which are located on the sides. That it can be historically identified that mankind has been hunting for millennium can't be discounted either, seems to me. To counter that you mentioned that we also lived in caves, so that is not a good determination. A fair point, but we also ate berries in the past and still do too. So it ultimately is moot either way.Our intelligence (and our technology) adds a very real complication to everything we do. No longer are we stuck in the 'survive + reproduce' cycle - instead we have musicians, painters, people that choose to not have children, etc. This means we now have the ability to change our behaviour to something not predetermined by our ancestry. Since we have the options to do far more things now (and we know more things too) - that, in turn, means that our judgement has to be far more sophisticated too. Choosing how we behave gets more complicated the more we develop.A long time ago is was simply: "Kill bear or die.". Now it is: "Is it an endangered species? Can we tranquilise the bear? Can we get in our car and ignore it? Can we make money selling its fur? Do I have a personal vendetta against bears?, etc."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
Jazzns says:
Yes, we have the ability to sustain ourselves without meat. I agree that this wasn't always the case (if you go back far enough).If you did not have available to you the vast diversity of plants that are able to substitute in your diet the things you get from eating animals, you would have a harder time surviving. Human beings have evolved as omnivores which is why even though in modern times it is trivial, if you avoid eating meat then you usually have to be conscious that your plant sources of food have a certain diversity of nutrients. It is unclear what proportion of early hunter/gatherer's diet was meat - some say a lot, some say not much. But since the introduction of agriculture meat has often been a rare luxury for all but the rich. Which seem to provably be entirely a cultural thing. It is also true that the amount of people able/willing to grow their own crops is suprisingly small. The amount of people able/willing to perform life saving trauma intervention is also surprisingly small. Yet we manage to as a society find some people willing to take on these roles. It has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of killing animals and everything to do with the personality and cultural upbringing of individuals.
(Just to clarify: when I used the word 'able' I meant 'psychologically able' not 'skilled'.)I expect that the people you describe as unable/unwilling to grow their own crops are limited by knowledge and/or inclination - not by an actual aversion to farming. The amount of people psychologically able to become nurses/doctors/surgeons far surpasses the amount of people able to work in abattoirs. I agree that this is mostly due to personality and culture - which brings us back to mores and morals. Really there is no such difficulty. Plenty of "horrific" things result in desirable outcomes for ourselves. The kinds of things that happen to human explorers venturing into a new frontier (be it be the ocean or space, etc) can be "horrific" when things go wrong yet the personal qualities and the results of human exploration are regarded as some of our absolute highest virtues. The same can be said of some sports. The same thing can be said of war in defense of your country
But they do not intend for those horrific things to occur to them, sometimes to the point of denying that those things are even possible.Even in war, people have to be psychologically trained (arguably brainwashed) to actually go fight. But, after training, many soldiers still suffer from PTSD. "horrific" is also hyperbole of course in the case of meat eating it is quite possible to believe that killing an animal is not "horrific". For some people who are squeemish about the issue it might just be "messy" or "smelly" or "hard work". There are plenty of reasons for humans to want to avoid killing an animal apart from the "horror" of it of which the foremost may just be the propensity of humans for laziness.
I used the word 'horrific' on purpose. To see the reaction of people when faced with killing an animal, the best word I could find was 'horror' - "An intense, painful feeling of repugnance". I have never seen laziness cause that kind of reaction - not even in teenagers.
There seems to be nothing of the sort. The difficulties we would have as a species from eliminating meat from our diet would be significant. There best argument I can think of is from a pure environmental perspective in that we are running out of land to raise our meat. Certainly an argument can be made for health reasons that we eat too much of it (westerners tend to be more carnivore vs omnivore) but to say that we have an obvious directive to not eat meat is a matter of an unevidenced opinion by people who have chosen that as their particular lifestyle.
You say that there are not lots of reasons to stop eating meat and then you start listing them. And those reasons are 'obvious directives'.There are more reasons if you want them (e.g. Greenhouse gas emission from livestock, higher water consumption by livestock, overuse of antibiotics in cattle, etc.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
Hooah says:
Sorry.I'm all for animal conservation for extinct/exotic/rare animals. I couldn't resist. (Bolding is mine!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
Bluejay says:
OK. I was a bit pushed for time when I replied. That is why I posted a simplistic (as stated) answer.What is pain that it should matter so much? Killing is killing, regardless of how much (or little) discomfort your victim feels about it. Would it be okay if we anaesthetized animals before we killed them, so they didn't go through any pain or suffering? {AbE: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you would still think meat is immoral, even though anaesthesis would entirely satisfy the principle on which you pretend your decision is based. The principle of your argument is not pain and suffering: it's an emotional reaction to "cute and fuzzy" and "blood and gore"; and you've just latched onto the "pain and suffering" line ex post facto to make it sound like it stems from a logical, moral principle. In this, you exactly parallel the scenario that Straggler put forward in his "aliens-eating-humans" argument.} But I can see by your post that you are here to fight and insult.Accusing me of lying and deception is unjustified and wrong. If that is your idea of a discussion then I end it here, as I am not willing to play that game.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
xongsmith says: To quote that most famous of logisticians:When the leader beetle gets too old she knows, just like all the other leaders before her, that the correct thing to do, before she dies elsewhere, is to jump into Yd's mouth and get eaten in order to preserve everything she has learned. Yd has grown attached to this beetle and also knows he must do the task before him. Sort of poignant story. "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
This discussion has drifted a long way from my actual proposition.
Anyhoo... A little clarification:My morals guide me and only me. I do not use them to direct the behaviour of others. Morals tend to be 'black and white' whereas life is mainly grey. This is why my morals are a guide and not a law. They can occasionally conflict. This conflict often leads to my morals being changed. I am also open to new information which can also lead to changes. If you accept that by nature we are omnivores, why do you think it was morally wrong for our ancestors to have eaten meat?
This question IMO is almost meaningless. Unfortunately, rather than just say "this question is almost meaningless" - I tried to answer it by attempting to put myself 'in their shoes'.This has resulted in us discussing a worthless answer to a meaningless question. I'll be more careful in future. JUC says:
If they have the capacity to have morals, then you had best ask them.Do you think it is morally wrong for all omnivores to eat meat? If you are asking me if I think it is morally wrong for me to eat meat, then the answer is yes. If we decide to stop ourselves eating meat, should we not logically also stop all other omnivores and carnivores from eating meat too? If we're going to carry on producing meat to feed our cats and dogs, as well as animals in zoos, safari parks, etc, what difference does it make if we eat the meat as well?
That logic only works if you think that our own morals overrides all others' morals (or lack of) - which I don't.
What are we actually concerned about? Are we concerned about animals dying to become food? If so, we must surely do all we can to stop any animal being eaten by any other animal. Or are we just concerned about our sensibilities? If so, I don't accept that as a moral reason to stop eating meat, but just a matter of personal choice.
Morals are "a matter of personal choice".We are free to use our sensibilities to judge our own actions as we deem fit. JUC says:
Are you saying that if you had the desire to eat the bear, then you would ignore all other considerations (moral and otherwise) and just kill it?I presume that "kill bear or die" in this context means "kill or be killed" not "kill to eat to survive". The moral considerations you list after that are all reasonable ones for not killing the bear, but have nothing to do with a desire to eat it, so not really relevant to this topic. Are you saying that if your actions are allowed by one of your morals (e.g. eating meat is OK) then any 'counter-morals' (e.g. not killing a rare species) are ignored?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pseudonym Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: UK Joined: |
JUC says:
So you want me to identify a single 'moral law' that everyone applies to themselves?but is there is a fundamental objective reason you (or anyone else) may have for no human being morally justified in eating meat? Without asking everyone, I couldn't possibly answer that. Or do you think I should be making moral decisions for them? There are few reasons to eat meat and many reasons to stop.But what you actually do (or consider moral) is something you have to decide for yourself.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024