I did not cause the animal I am eating to die, so why do I have an apparent moral obligation to not eat them? Why do you worry so much about animal suffering and dismiss human suffering as not your problem?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
How do you morally justify eating animals? (itt the OP discovers forum discussions)
- Thread starter sulam
- Start date
- Status
I did not cause the animal I am eating to die, so why do I have an apparent moral obligation to not eat them? Why do you worry so much about animal suffering and dismiss human suffering as not your problem?
Easy, I just so don't care.
Part of me wants to read and find a method of pretending that I really care about this sort of thing but I just can't muster up the effort. Although I hardly think i'm in the minority here since the majority of meat eaters don't care.
Funny story, I had a girlfriend who was a vegetarian and I wanted to impress her so I became a vegetarian myself. One of the worst decisions of my life (thankfully she dumped me)
Part of me wants to read and find a method of pretending that I really care about this sort of thing but I just can't muster up the effort. Although I hardly think i'm in the minority here since the majority of meat eaters don't care.
Funny story, I had a girlfriend who was a vegetarian and I wanted to impress her so I became a vegetarian myself. One of the worst decisions of my life (thankfully she dumped me)
No, because by consuming animal products we create a demand for someone to butcher the animal.
I eat meat but I think some of the arguments being used in this thread are pretty weak.
Basically I am with Kristoph on this one - I eat meat because I am selfish and enjoy it, and don't have to directly deal with the suffering that is the consequence of my choice.
- I would say that the comparison of action (killing animals for food) to inaction (not donating all my money to charity) is unbalanced and unfair.
- I also disagree with the population control argument ('Oh no we have too many cows!!!!'... That's because we bred them all. For food).
- It may be in our nature to eat meat but as mentioned, that doesn't make it 'good' or thus prevent it from being 'bad' (see Naturalistic Fallacy). We as humans have the capacity to make a choice based on morals, which lions and sharks and spiders don't.
- We also have a digestive system that is fully capable of surviving on non-animal products which in this day and age are not hard to acquire. I find the 'nutrition' argument fairly tongue-in-cheek - as this question was posed to members of an internet forum dedicated to a game, I'm assuming that pretty much everyone posting is hardly living in poverty (if you are: should probably not be sitting around on a pokemon site)
Basically I am with Kristoph on this one - I eat meat because I am selfish and enjoy it, and don't have to directly deal with the suffering that is the consequence of my choice.
Having a discussion is not, but implying that those of us who eat meat are morally wrong is just as bad. Also remember that morality itself is a matter of opinion. How about I ask you how you morally justify wearing clothing that was manufactured by factories that utilize child labor? I'm not going down that road, I'm just saying this is a difficult argument to have if you are not open and willing to understand the opposing opinions.
In your thread title, you merely posed a question to us, asking how we morally justify eating animals. However, when people answered this question, you repeatedly contradicted them and implied their opinion was flawed.
Sorry, this whole thing just sounds like another whiny activism thread. I am sure you are a very intelligent and morally sound person and I mean you no disrespect.
I do think human suffering as my problem, I donate to charities as well as work at a food pantry. But I also do not support human suffering, just as most people would not support something that causes human suffering if they knew it did so. Which is what I'm saying using animal products causes unnecessary suffering to animals which makes it morally wrong.
because we're arguing with someone who calls himself "C.Sheen" and has a "winning" avatar
Well, as long as I don't think about the animals face while I'm eating a burger or something, then I'll be fine. Now if I ate something like a McDonalds burger (which I don't -- I use to only eat Carls Jr's. 'burgers' but that was about it, but now I cant eat that stuff anymore; I got use to tasting real food and cant eat the cheap stuff anymore; body just wont accept it), I'd probably feel sad because the meat (whatever 'meat' those burgers contain) doesn't get to roam around, drink fresh water, etc. But things like organic beef, or Kobe beef, etc., are all the things I can eat guilty-free.
As long as my meat friend lived a happy, somewhat long life, with sunshine, fresh water (beer as well if it's Kobe), good food, and able to roam around in a contained, lush, fresh aired area, then I thank my meat source for giving its life for me to eat and live on. I believe the human species is the only one that thinks about its own death, and this is why when we hear things like us being cooked and eaten by other humans clearly sounds terrible and we would soon look like freakish people like from King Kong.
Now there is probably one thing I cant eat or make and sadly that's Lobster. If I could buy them dead and put them into the pot for them to steam, then fine, but since you have to put them in alive, then I just cant do it. But like I said earlier, as long as my meat source lived a good, happy life, then I thank it for giving its life for me to live on (even though it didn't have a decision to give up its own life for me to be eaten, but since animals don't think about their own death, then it makes everything a bit easier).
~ Aether Nexus
As long as my meat friend lived a happy, somewhat long life, with sunshine, fresh water (beer as well if it's Kobe), good food, and able to roam around in a contained, lush, fresh aired area, then I thank my meat source for giving its life for me to eat and live on. I believe the human species is the only one that thinks about its own death, and this is why when we hear things like us being cooked and eaten by other humans clearly sounds terrible and we would soon look like freakish people like from King Kong.
Now there is probably one thing I cant eat or make and sadly that's Lobster. If I could buy them dead and put them into the pot for them to steam, then fine, but since you have to put them in alive, then I just cant do it. But like I said earlier, as long as my meat source lived a good, happy life, then I thank it for giving its life for me to live on (even though it didn't have a decision to give up its own life for me to be eaten, but since animals don't think about their own death, then it makes everything a bit easier).
~ Aether Nexus
The difference between people eating animals and animals eating other animals is that people have a choice, whereas other animals do not. A lion cannot decide to stop eating zebras. Its actions cannot be held to be morally wrong, since there is no alternative. But people are faced with a choice. Unlike animals, people have the ability to make a moral decision and are accountable for the choice they make. On one side is the decision that causes more suffering overall, but is beneficial to the person who makes the decision. On the other side is the decision that causes less total suffering but has less of a benefit for the person making it. The most ethical choice is the second.
As for moral relativism, the logical conclusion of moral relativism is moral nihilism. In a relativist ethical system, what is there to stop someone from making up his or her own completely new set of morals in which stealing and hurting innocent people and the like are all good? If morality is based on opinion, as moral relativists say, that person's perverse moral system is just as right as anyone else's. And if societal standards determine what is moral, then were Southerners justified in holding slaves? It was the societal standard then, but it is obviously wrong.
The argument that non-relativist views of morality are arrogant is based on an hidden straw man argument. A relativist who says "moral absolutism is arrogant" is assuming that moral absolutists think their own moral systems are the best. But a more common view is that there is a correct moral system "out there somewhere," but nobody knows the whole thing.
Ethics should be approached as a science, like physics. Just like how physicists can reason out theories and laws from past experience, people can reach moral laws based on experience and reason. Nobody has all the relevant information they would need to completely figure out the true morality, but people can determine parts of it. People reach different moral conclusions for two reasons. First, one could be using logic incorrectly. Second, one person's experiences might not match up with the other's. One of them has experiences that more accurately reflect the big picture, but it is difficult to figure out which of them does. This difficulty is why morality looks like a matter of opinion to many people. Note that simply accepting a moral system because your parents, your church, or your society as a whole taught it to you is not valid. Knowledge requires not only belief and truth, but also justification, and "because someone important said so" is not a valid justification. People have to figure out morality for themselves.
As for moral relativism, the logical conclusion of moral relativism is moral nihilism. In a relativist ethical system, what is there to stop someone from making up his or her own completely new set of morals in which stealing and hurting innocent people and the like are all good? If morality is based on opinion, as moral relativists say, that person's perverse moral system is just as right as anyone else's. And if societal standards determine what is moral, then were Southerners justified in holding slaves? It was the societal standard then, but it is obviously wrong.
The argument that non-relativist views of morality are arrogant is based on an hidden straw man argument. A relativist who says "moral absolutism is arrogant" is assuming that moral absolutists think their own moral systems are the best. But a more common view is that there is a correct moral system "out there somewhere," but nobody knows the whole thing.
Ethics should be approached as a science, like physics. Just like how physicists can reason out theories and laws from past experience, people can reach moral laws based on experience and reason. Nobody has all the relevant information they would need to completely figure out the true morality, but people can determine parts of it. People reach different moral conclusions for two reasons. First, one could be using logic incorrectly. Second, one person's experiences might not match up with the other's. One of them has experiences that more accurately reflect the big picture, but it is difficult to figure out which of them does. This difficulty is why morality looks like a matter of opinion to many people. Note that simply accepting a moral system because your parents, your church, or your society as a whole taught it to you is not valid. Knowledge requires not only belief and truth, but also justification, and "because someone important said so" is not a valid justification. People have to figure out morality for themselves.
I have two questions for vegans--
1) You do realize that stuff like milk doesn't harm the cow. Rather, if a cow isn't milked it dies. So by not drinking milk, you're not making a moral statement, you just have a poor diet. I'm not saying that you're killing cows my not drinking milk, but you do realize that most of your efforts aren't doing anything, right?
2) What if scientists discovered that vegetables have feelings? Do you just not eat?
1) You do realize that stuff like milk doesn't harm the cow. Rather, if a cow isn't milked it dies. So by not drinking milk, you're not making a moral statement, you just have a poor diet. I'm not saying that you're killing cows my not drinking milk, but you do realize that most of your efforts aren't doing anything, right?
2) What if scientists discovered that vegetables have feelings? Do you just not eat?
buying meat doesn't actually harm any cows either, since the cow is already dead...I believe the reasons are two-fold: the principle of abstention to show you're not supporting it, and of course not buying will reduce the demand even though realistically one person boycotting won't make a difference. Generally animals are kept in poor conditions, and I know at least in the case of milk cows the cow must give birth in order to give milk, and the calf is normally turned into veal, which involves putting them in a small box and feeding them nothing but milk.
I would suggest anyone feeling misguided or guilty about eating meat read anything by Temple Grandin; she loved animals far more than any person should and she still eats them.
Someone once told me that I shouldn't eat chickens because they are smarter than dogs. To this day I don't know why I didn't kick them in the face; I'm not even certain it's because I have trouble kicking that high. Cows and dogs are animals of forced evolution. Both forced into symbiotic relationships where we provide everything they need to live their life; one gives food in return, the other gives companionship.
If this were some fantastical children's film where cows think like people, you might have a cow think that this is a form of slavery and then suddenly they want freedom and there is a revolution of cows escaping the farm using a variety of fart jokes. This has not happened because cows do not think like people. They do not even feel like people. At least dogs do that. How would you feel to forced to fight another person to the death? Pretty much the same way a dog would. You leave a dog in a house for a day and they get lonely and bored. Cows don't give a fuck. They don't have your emotions. Stop acting like they do.
Most people are vegetarians because when they were young and stupid someone showed them slaughterhouse footage; as if adult or even late teen meat eaters don't fucking know what happens in slaughterhouse. It's not pretty, but then again neither is the process in which milk becomes yogurt. Fungus is pretty disgusting. All the trees in my yard bear fruit by having sex with each other across my air. And whether you are a meat eater or a vegan, some cook has spit in your restaurant food. This is why you don't get man points for being a vegetarian. Cause a man would just deal with it.
Your morality is based entirely upon feeling, and that's what led to pro-sexist and racism morality systems in the first place. The very concept that a morality system is flawed just because the masses embrace it stems from this; people feel that systems currently in place are better and safer. It takes reason to fix this, and reason you don't got. Human being are omnivores, like bears. That's science son. We don't have a group of people running around claiming morale high-ground for not eating vegetables, and that's not because vegetables are any less alive than animals; it's because that would be retarded. When you think about it like that, you really shouldn't be so perplexed why so many people don't even consider vegetarianism.
In the much wiser and less dickish words of Temple Grandin
"I often get asked, 'How can you care about animals when you design slaughter plants?'. Many people today are totally insulated from death, but every living thing eventually dies; this is the cycle of life. Since people are responsible for raising and breeding farm animals, they must also take responsibility to give the animals living conditions that provide a decent life and a painless death. During the animal's life, both it's physical needs and emotional needs should be satisfied. Intensive farming systems need to be improved because the quality of animals' lives is poor in some of them.
The more I observe and learn about how dogs are kept today, I am more convinced that many cattle have better lives than some of the pampered pets. Too many dogs are all alone all day with no human or dog companions. Recently I walked down a residential street in a neighborhood close to me home, and I was appalled to hear three different dogs barking or whining in three different houses. Separation anxiety is a major problem for many dogs. One of the worst cases of separation anxiety was a dog who broke off its teeth while trying to escape from a yard where he was alone all day. I recently visited Uruguay is South America. Pet dogs with collars were running around town with no leashes. Nobody was concerned about dog bites because the dogs were all well socialized. I visited London and walked through a large park near a zoo. A lot of dogs were running around off leash with their owners nearby. This was a regular park, not a dog park. Families with little kids and the dogs were having a great time. It looked like the neighborhood of my youth.
Some people think death is the most terrible thing that can happen to an animal. Dogs that run loose are often killed by cars, but their social life is probably better. Dogs that live a more confined existence are less likely to get killed, but their quality of life may be poorer unless their owners spend a lot of time playing and interacting with them. I think the most important thing for an animal is the quality of its life."
Someone once told me that I shouldn't eat chickens because they are smarter than dogs. To this day I don't know why I didn't kick them in the face; I'm not even certain it's because I have trouble kicking that high. Cows and dogs are animals of forced evolution. Both forced into symbiotic relationships where we provide everything they need to live their life; one gives food in return, the other gives companionship.
If this were some fantastical children's film where cows think like people, you might have a cow think that this is a form of slavery and then suddenly they want freedom and there is a revolution of cows escaping the farm using a variety of fart jokes. This has not happened because cows do not think like people. They do not even feel like people. At least dogs do that. How would you feel to forced to fight another person to the death? Pretty much the same way a dog would. You leave a dog in a house for a day and they get lonely and bored. Cows don't give a fuck. They don't have your emotions. Stop acting like they do.
Most people are vegetarians because when they were young and stupid someone showed them slaughterhouse footage; as if adult or even late teen meat eaters don't fucking know what happens in slaughterhouse. It's not pretty, but then again neither is the process in which milk becomes yogurt. Fungus is pretty disgusting. All the trees in my yard bear fruit by having sex with each other across my air. And whether you are a meat eater or a vegan, some cook has spit in your restaurant food. This is why you don't get man points for being a vegetarian. Cause a man would just deal with it.
Your morality is based entirely upon feeling, and that's what led to pro-sexist and racism morality systems in the first place. The very concept that a morality system is flawed just because the masses embrace it stems from this; people feel that systems currently in place are better and safer. It takes reason to fix this, and reason you don't got. Human being are omnivores, like bears. That's science son. We don't have a group of people running around claiming morale high-ground for not eating vegetables, and that's not because vegetables are any less alive than animals; it's because that would be retarded. When you think about it like that, you really shouldn't be so perplexed why so many people don't even consider vegetarianism.
In the much wiser and less dickish words of Temple Grandin
"I often get asked, 'How can you care about animals when you design slaughter plants?'. Many people today are totally insulated from death, but every living thing eventually dies; this is the cycle of life. Since people are responsible for raising and breeding farm animals, they must also take responsibility to give the animals living conditions that provide a decent life and a painless death. During the animal's life, both it's physical needs and emotional needs should be satisfied. Intensive farming systems need to be improved because the quality of animals' lives is poor in some of them.
The more I observe and learn about how dogs are kept today, I am more convinced that many cattle have better lives than some of the pampered pets. Too many dogs are all alone all day with no human or dog companions. Recently I walked down a residential street in a neighborhood close to me home, and I was appalled to hear three different dogs barking or whining in three different houses. Separation anxiety is a major problem for many dogs. One of the worst cases of separation anxiety was a dog who broke off its teeth while trying to escape from a yard where he was alone all day. I recently visited Uruguay is South America. Pet dogs with collars were running around town with no leashes. Nobody was concerned about dog bites because the dogs were all well socialized. I visited London and walked through a large park near a zoo. A lot of dogs were running around off leash with their owners nearby. This was a regular park, not a dog park. Families with little kids and the dogs were having a great time. It looked like the neighborhood of my youth.
Some people think death is the most terrible thing that can happen to an animal. Dogs that run loose are often killed by cars, but their social life is probably better. Dogs that live a more confined existence are less likely to get killed, but their quality of life may be poorer unless their owners spend a lot of time playing and interacting with them. I think the most important thing for an animal is the quality of its life."
I would love to read all the text walls and contribute to this thread by strengthening a current point but wow those text walls are large. Instead I would like to add my own point, and if it's been stated already...hooray for repetition.
The way I see it is that humans are animals too and other animals eat other animals for survival and fuel so the only reason humans see it as immoral is because of our conscience getting in our way. Hence, vegans.
The way I see it is that humans are animals too and other animals eat other animals for survival and fuel so the only reason humans see it as immoral is because of our conscience getting in our way. Hence, vegans.
...
SENTIENT animals. (or animals that seem close enough to sentience to really fall under that description.)
This means things like dolphins and elephants. Pigs and octopi are about the only things I know that really are eaten often and are considered intelligent, and I'm more than willing to buy lab-grown pork chops once people figure them out.
Last I checked, cattle have herd instinct at best.
This. Cows and chicken are more suitable prey than fellow humans-- especially since we're social animals that need to band together to have any sort of power.
Also, in modern civilization, it's no longer predator-and-prey. It's a mutually beneficial symbiosis. As long as people are around, cows and chicken will never go extinct, and only continue to gain more territory. The relationship is more beneficial to them than it is to us!
Besides, all ethical theory is a load of crock that can't prove the existence of any sort of basis-- it all comes down to gut feeling anyway. My gut want beef.
This is the most important and really only reason I've stopped eating meat. I'm not so concerned about the death of animals, but rather the life they led up to that death. Unfortunately, most any animal that is on your plate today arrived there through a process of intense suffering.
Animals intended for slaughter are treated as a thing, a product, and only viewed as a living being to the extent required by regulatory agencies (which is very little, and the heads of those are often in bed with heads of meat companies, so its all kinda corrupt, but thats a different thread). Anything done to the animal is done only to enhance the quantity of the meat, change the flavor, and cut down on costs, and its all often at the expense of the animals welfare. The quality of the meat doesn't really interest mass producers.
Without delving into specifies and quotables, its worth knowing and repeating that nearly every animals on your plate suffers intensely. Read about it, research it, and even if it doesn't change your mind about eating meat, its very interesting and you can at least fully understand what it means to eat that hamburger.
And every time you eat or purchase one, its the equivalent of putting money in the meat companies' hand and promoting such horrible mistreatment on a MASSIVE scale. For this reason, I decided to stop eating meat. I had to stop giving away money to a cause I find so repulsive, a cause that is kept alive because I and others are willing to overlook that meat production companies get away with torture because it saves them money.
Read about it, read both sides of the argument. And not just websites, read books and research people have put time and work into, not just opinions.
Someone who eats a steak is not killing something. They are supporting the killing of something by making it financially viable. Similarly, by not paying for the food of someone in at third world country, and instead choosing to pay for internet, you are causing them to suffer by refusing to financially support them. It is the same principle. What makes your refusal to save starving poor people any better than someone's support of animal slaughter?
I eat meat. I'd eat human if it wasn't generally frowned upon. Now, I wouldn't want to butcher all of the animals I eat, necessarily, but that's more because of a combination of laziness and being squeamish around blood.
I'm personally not that interested in having the argument that often, same as with religion and abortion, since there's never a winner. I certainly understand what people feel about the immorality of killing animals. And I'm definitely not a fan of some of the unethical practices that go on in the food industry, and don't support some places because of it.
But, in the end, the only people I really can't stand are the "vegetarians" who still eat fish. If you're doing it for health reasons, then don't pretend. If you're supposedly not eating meat for the ethical reasons, then what the hell are you still eating fish for? I used to fish, and I can guarantee that you have to kill them before you can eat them.
Other than those people, though, I've got plenty of vegetarian friends. I just don't like cooking for them that often. Making Thanksgiving dinner for 25 people and having to make sure I made vegetarian stuffing and other sides for the one vegetarian was a pain.
I'm personally not that interested in having the argument that often, same as with religion and abortion, since there's never a winner. I certainly understand what people feel about the immorality of killing animals. And I'm definitely not a fan of some of the unethical practices that go on in the food industry, and don't support some places because of it.
But, in the end, the only people I really can't stand are the "vegetarians" who still eat fish. If you're doing it for health reasons, then don't pretend. If you're supposedly not eating meat for the ethical reasons, then what the hell are you still eating fish for? I used to fish, and I can guarantee that you have to kill them before you can eat them.
Other than those people, though, I've got plenty of vegetarian friends. I just don't like cooking for them that often. Making Thanksgiving dinner for 25 people and having to make sure I made vegetarian stuffing and other sides for the one vegetarian was a pain.
- Status