Ethics of Eating Meat

[yossarian]

When it comes to taste I agree that vegan food is not as tasty as animal products.

I can't relate to feeling bad from veganism though, so I guess that is the disconnect.

Personally I feel like crap when I eat animal products. I have noticeably less energy, I have incredible mucous build up, my bowels respond badly... when I eat meat or dairy my body basically screams in pain. I've really only eaten animal flesh a handful of times in the last 3 years and each time I regretted it almost instantly because I could feel the adverse body processes.

Anyway I don't think guilt is ever a healthy response, so if someone feels like they genuinely must eat animals they should do it without guilt and simply thank the dead animals as I thank the dead plants.

What I find beyond strange is the doublethink that I often get from ranchers. I live in a farming/ranching community and I often hear this "meat eater pride" thing that this thread is about. My relatives will eat a double serving of turkey in my honour on thanksgiving... Where does this spite come from? And why are people so proud of their corpse consumption?

People literally have bumper stickers around here that say "Eat Beef!"

I'll never understand how ranchers can burn their animals with red-hot metal, fatten them up to some profit-maximizing "ideal weight", kill them when they've barely reached adulthood and then talk about how they "love their animals like their children".

Either it sucks to be their child, or they are deluding themselves to avoid the true horror of their actions much like Abu Ghraib prison guards being conditioned to dehumanize their captives.

Any kind of argument that the above behaviour is necessary for human survival is completely ignorant IMHO.

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by yossarian

. . . . I'll never understand how ranchers can burn their animals with red-hot metal, fatten them up to some profit-maximizing "ideal weight", kill them when they've barely reached adulthood and then talk about how they "love their animals like their children".

Either it sucks to be their child, or they are deluding themselves to avoid the true horror of their actions much like Abu Ghraib prison guards being conditioned to dehumanize their captives.

Any kind of argument that the above behaviour is necessary for human survival is completely ignorant IMHO.

Well, I agree with you there. But, not all farmers / ranchers are like that -- I have many cow-raising neighbors, and I see how they treat their cows every day. They don't brand, and they aren't unkind to them.

And as much as I do wish I could be vegetarian, my body just seems to need meat. So thank you for allowing me, and others, the possibility that eating meat is ok.

Blessings from Belle,

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Would it be accurate to say that you enjoy this way of life so much that you're willing to kill numerous animals?

I get the feeling that people are simply unaware of the fact that humans can be perfectly healthy on a 100% vegan diet.

There is simply no reason to eat meat besides one's own pleasure and/or habitual response.

Claiming some kind of ownership over the birth process of animals doesn't change the ethics of the situation at all. You can't claim birth. Ultimately the animals themselves drive their birthing process and just because you interfere in numerous ways does not put you in any kind of God-like position of life or death judgment over them.

Certainly there have been times when animals have chosen to die so that humans can survive - but those days are long past.

Today meat is eaten for pleasure and pleasure alone.

Would you agree with the statement that you raise, kill, and eat animals entirely for your own pleasure? Both the pleasure of the "way of life" and the pleasure of the taste of flesh?

Well, it isn't true that people can be 100% healthy without eating meat. My ex's naturopath actually insisted he eat meat (he'd been vegetarian for a long time, and was becoming more and more ill) because he was allergic to all of the vegetarian protein alternatives, as well as all seafood.

Personally, I've been vetegarian at different times in my life. If I want to weigh 500 pounds, and feel awful, than it is a good diet for me. Since I don't want to weight 500 pounds and prefer to feel physically good, it is best I eat some meat.

Please don't make a lot of assumptions about people you know nothing about, make food choices all about some sort of ego gratification, and try to propose that your assumptions are true for everyone. It is not respectful.

Belle,

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

Well, it isn't true that people can be 100% healthy without eating meat. My ex's naturopath actually insisted he eat meat (he'd been vegetarian for a long time, and was becoming more and more ill) because he was allergic to all of the vegetarian protein alternatives, as well as all seafood.

Personally, I've been vetegarian at different times in my life. If I want to weigh 500 pounds, and feel awful, than it is a good diet for me. Since I don't want to weight 500 pounds and prefer to feel physically good, it is best I eat some meat.

Please don't make a lot of assumptions about people you know nothing about, make food choices all about some sort of ego gratification, and try to propose that your assumptions are true for everyone. It is not respectful.

Belle,

Both claims, for and against, are "assumptions" in the way you use the word. They aren't assumptions at all but rather suppositions or perhaps simply "claims".

A lot of discussions end with one party asking the other to be respectful, hinting that they have taken offense. I'm not convinced that there is value in toning down an argument to avoid being chastised in this way. Rather I think I should express myself honestly and fully.

As far as my own self-awareness reaches, I have no malice here and offer no disrespect. So my supposition is that any perceived disrespect is born by the afflicted party.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that some people require meat. I've certainly heard the claim a lot, but I'm just not convinced. It seems a lot of people don't give it a very thorough attempt and use an excuse like "my blood type can't handle it" as a comfortable cop-out so they can return to previous habit-patterns. One person I know in real life used a variety of excuses for awhile, but then eventually she just got honest with herself and laughed and said, "The truth is I just like meat, and I don't want to think about the animals." She still eats meat to this day. I think her honesty is refreshing. Most people simply get angry when they are pressed.

I hope disclaimers stating that I'm human and therefore fallible are not necessarily. Feel free to assume that I do not consider myself to be omniscient.

[fwellers]

I hear you and I understand your post totally. I think a lot of the mentality you describe coming from people in "farm country" is because that is their livelyhood. It's their economy. So of course they are going to be more closed off to any negativity about it.
I don't understand branding either. I don't think it's necessary. I think the OP in this post will agree that any form of cruelty to animals is dead wrong. That being said, killing an animal is not cruel if you need it for food. That's just nature.
So now you have us all living in cities and towns, needing to go to the office for 10 hours a day, and we don't hunt our own food. So we rely on farms for our food. ( I know, you don't rely on livestock because you don't eat flesh ), but I do. I'm not proud of it, and I do have some guilt about it.
I just wish there would be a change. Less, much less corporate greed, so that passing the most animals through the birth -shitty life - poor death cycle, in the shortest amount of time, isn't the main goal.

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Both claims, for and against, are "assumptions" in the way you use the word. They aren't assumptions at all but rather suppositions or perhaps simply "claims".

A lot of discussions end with one party asking the other to be respectful, hinting that they have taken offense. I'm not convinced that there is value in toning down an argument to avoid being chastised in this way. Rather I think I should express myself honestly and fully.

As far as my own self-awareness reaches, I have no malice here and offer no disrespect. So my supposition is that any perceived disrespect is born by the afflicted party.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that some people require meat. I've certainly heard the claim a lot, but I'm just not convinced. It seems a lot of people don't give it a very thorough attempt and use an excuse like "my blood type can't handle it" as a comfortable cop-out so they can return to previous habit-patterns. One person I know in real life used a variety of excuses for awhile, but then eventually she just got honest with herself and laughed and said, "The truth is I just like meat, and I don't want to think about the animals." She still eats meat to this day. I think her honesty is refreshing. Most people simply get angry when they are pressed.

I hope disclaimers stating that I'm human and therefore fallible are not necessarily. Feel free to assume that I do not consider myself to be omniscient.

Well, I am not angry with you, and I totally know you are not malicious.

However if I have a hot button, this being right about things is probably it. I find it a common occurrance that folks from our western european culture claim to know what is right, or the truth. Bottom line, it can't be known. We can only know what we believe based upon the evidence we've experienced and our view on life.

Honestly, I do think our own culture is very disrespectful. it happens all the time that people speak their beliefs as if they are the truths, work to garner support for their beliefs, and try to discredit any belief that is not in agreement. From my frame of reference, this attitude seems very paternalistic, condescending and disrespectful of others. While I might agree or disagree with your beliefs; the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of them to me isn't the issue.

To me, if there is evil in the world, that attachment to being 'right' and not being able to see that other's perspectives might be completely valid based upon their view of life, well that would be it. But I don't believe in evil, so it really doesn't matter. Yet people have gone to war over this very thing; committed genocide over this very issue, this making themselves right, and others wrong. It is a very good way of creating separation and stepping outside of the realm of empathy and compassion.

Bottom line, I am not angry. And I do see this insistence on being right as disrespectful, and sometimes perhaps I respond to that perspective in a way that is not entirely positive.

Don't worry, it isn't personal. I just don't like it in any shape or form. I prefer Covey's suggestion of seek first to understand, then to be understood.

Blessings from Belle,

[Joeschmoe]

Saying that some humans just need meat is sort of like saying some cows just need meat, or some lions just need to be on a plant based diet. It is absolutely nonsensical to believe that some humans need completely different classes of food. No other species on earth has to eat different diets based on blood types, or digestive issues, or anything else.

Humans destroy species by eating meat. Instead of killing and eating the weakest/sickest/or stupidest members of a species. We kill the biggest, fastest, strongest members of a species (like herbivores do with plants).

There is also a reason that PETA videos get a gut disgust reaction. If we were true carnivores the sight of diseased, disabled, bleeding, and struggling animals would be absolutely mouth watering.

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

Saying that some humans just need meat is sort of like saying some cows just need meat, or some lions just need to be on a plant based diet. It is absolutely nonsensical to believe that some humans need completely different classes of food. No other species on earth has to eat different diets based on blood types, or digestive issues, or anything else.

Humans destroy species by eating meat. Instead of killing and eating the weakest/sickest/or stupidest members of a species. We kill the biggest, fastest, strongest members of a species (like herbivores do with plants).

There is also a reason that PETA videos get a gut disgust reaction. If we were true carnivores the sight of diseased, disabled, bleeding, and struggling animals would be absolutely mouth watering.

Hmmmm, well, in my experience of my own body, that just isn't true. It does need meat. The naturopath told my ex that he had to eat meat in order to be healthy, after performing extensive testing on his body. There is evidence that some folks evolved from meat-eating human stock and others from vegetable and root-eating stock, and depending upon your body's genetic heritage, one diet may be much better tolerated than another. . . even Ghandi was told at one time that his own daughter would die if she didn't ingest some animal protein in the form of egg whites.

So there are lots of alternative viewpoints on this.

Just some information to consider. Blessings from Belle,

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Mato Kinze

When you respect that which you consume, you do honor to its life and its sacrifice that you may continue to live.

Where we have fallen down as a society and a culture is in the lack of thanks and respect we feel for that which we consume. Even the main religion in our western culture thanks "God" for the food we consume, not the beings themselves; and that's for those few who actually take the time to say "grace" before meals.

I think you make an excellent point here. I was talking recently with someone about the similarities of honoring what we consume and being mindful.

It just occurred to me how many personal problems arise from putting the production/consumption cycle on automatic pilot.

I think that it is best to eat what is grown regionally. The idea of vegetarianism comes from places where food grows year 'round. In areas where there is a long winter or bad soil, you didn't have much choice in what you ate prior to industrialization. I live in the midwest, in a land locked region, and for that reason I rarely eat seafood. If I lived in Japan it would be different.

I think this could eliminate some health problems also because you are consuming what is provided by the environment to keep you alive.

This also fits the environmentalist standpoint. The buffalo don't roam the rain forest. And if people ate what was grown locally, we would cut out a huge chunk of carbon emissions. Human population would be more spread out as defined by what was available to eat in the region.

Some interesting stuff to ponder. Thanks for speaking up.

[Playlife]

I think the reason why we humans have so varied dietary needs is that we just simply live in so various places. There's practically no local plants for Eskimos to eat, so they do need to eat meat. I've wondered that perhaps they(and a lot of other people too) live in "wrong place"? A human can't survive in such extremes if they don't do something "unnatural" - like clothe themselves, make fire, build houses from concrete and with central heating.

If a lion can't survive in Northern Europe, it doesn't go there. Lions are where they can just live off the Earth. They just hunt where there is food for them. Same with Gazelles and Elephants and other plant eating animals - they live where there is food for them.

Even if humans ate only plants, even then I think there would be vast differences between one and the other. Plant food doesn't just grow for them, they(humans) grow it. Tomatoes wouldn't even grow in Nordic countries, but people build greenhouses(which animals incidentally don't. ). In a way, humans have distanced themselves from Nature. Instead of letting nature nourish them, they use nature to grow food for themselves, by themselves(even if nature didn't really intend it this way). Different people in different places grow different food, hence the need for different diets.

That's all just a pondering. Not even a theory!!

[Mato Kinze]

Originally Posted by Playlife

I think the reason why we humans have so varied dietary needs is that we just simply live in so various places. There's practically no local plants for Eskimos to eat, so they do need to eat meat. I've wondered that perhaps they(and a lot of other people too) live in "wrong place"? A human can't survive in such extremes if they don't do something "unnatural" - like clothe themselves, make fire, build houses from concrete and with central heating.

If a lion can't survive in Northern Europe, it doesn't go there. Lions are where they can just live off the Earth. They just hunt where there is food for them. Same with Gazelles and Elephants and other plant eating animals - they live where there is food for them.

Even if humans ate only plants, even then I think there would be vast differences between one and the other. Plant food doesn't just grow for them, they(humans) grow it. Tomatoes wouldn't even grow in Nordic countries, but people build greenhouses(which animals incidentally don't. ). In a way, humans have distanced themselves from Nature. Instead of letting nature nourish them, they use nature to grow food for themselves, by themselves(even if nature didn't really intend it this way). Different people in different places grow different food, hence the need for different diets.

That's all just a pondering. Not even a theory!!

I disagree. I think it IS a theory. Christians call it "original sin." The act of separating ourselves from God in his wisdom separated us from the rest of his creation.

Provided you believe such things, we could no more go back to being "natural" as you define it, than we could live underwater - speaking in terms of the "species" of course.

Other animals adapt to suit their environment. What makes Humans unique is we adapt our environments to suit us. This includes the food we eat.

As a species - an animal species - we are ominvores. We have the ability to consume and digest both plant and animal proteins. A lion could no more live off a salad diet than a gazelle could eat and digest a steak.

There are other omnivores out there: Bears, skunks, racoons and some birds are just a few of them. Being an omnivore allows these species to succeed and flourish through opportunity. They can pretty much eat anything that comes along.

When we talk about ethics, we assume that animals don't have "ethics" because they don't have a "choice". But we, in our infinite wisdom and superiority DO have a choice and therefore some responsibility to all our relations to make choices that are good for not just us, but them as well - even if they are self-limiting.

Where we stumble is in making certain assumptions about how things are "supposed" to be. We look at the world from the perspective of a Human. Ok. That makes sense to a degree - we ARE human. But if we are going to assign ourselves the responsibility of being the stewards of this world and all of our relatives in it, then we have to stop thinking like humans.

If anyone figures out how to do that, let me know.

[Joeschmoe]

What we can consume has nothing to do with what you are designed to consume. In fact, cows in this country for many years were fed ground up remains of sick or dead cows that didn't make it to slaughter. Dog food is composed largely of grains (plants). And yes a lion can eat a salad and a gazelle can digest a steak.

There have been studies done and guess what. When you give animals food that they aren't designed for they get lifestyle diseases. Carnivores, and omnivores, will easily get diabetes when given plant food diets. They do not, however, get heart disease no matter what you feed them. Herbivores given large amounts of animal protien (all of them get some from insects) develop cancer and heart disease.

We are built absolutely nothing like bears or raccoons. We are not omnivores by design, but only by habits.

[Mato Kinze]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

What we can consume has nothing to do with what you are designed to consume. In fact, cows in this country for many years were fed ground up remains of sick or dead cows that didn't make it to slaughter. Dog food is composed largely of grains (plants). And yes a lion can eat a salad and a gazelle can digest a steak.

There have been studies done and guess what. When you give animals food that they aren't designed for they get lifestyle diseases. Carnivores, and omnivores, will easily get diabetes when given plant food diets. They do not, however, get heart disease no matter what you feed them. Herbivores given large amounts of animal protien (all of them get some from insects) develop cancer and heart disease.

We are built absolutely nothing like bears or raccoons. We are not omnivores by design, but only by habits.

Then how is that we have both incisors - designed to cut and tear animal flesh AND molars designed to grind plant material? We ARE omnivores by both design and definition.

[yossarian]

For me arguments about design and behaviour and "should we emulate animals" don't even enter into the equation.

For me it's a simple question pondered in the moment: do I shoot this deer, or do I let him live? I let my conscience decide. My conscience says to let him live.

And by the way, if we were to emulate animal behaviour we would all be pretty cruel people. Did you know that tigers will kill for fun? They will have a full belly, smell prey, kill the animal and then leave the corpse to rot. There are a million examples of cruel and brutal animals.

The behaviour of animals is not something I'm going to base my ethical decisions on.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Playlife

In a way, humans have distanced themselves from Nature. Instead of letting nature nourish them, they use nature to grow food for themselves, by themselves(even if nature didn't really intend it this way). ...

That's all just a pondering. Not even a theory!!

[emphasis mine]
A very good pondering, indeed. Have humans really distanced themselves from nature? We all consider our lives to be unnatural, but what if we are not? If the planet is a being just as we are, are we not the part of the planet chosen to experience thought and ego consciousness? Do people consider that the evolutionary jump that thought brings is also something the Earth has chosen to experience?

Everything is part of the Earth, including the humans that walk upon her and build cities on her. But, we have to judge... every god-damn thing against something else. It's an addiction. And in this case we judge ourselves against all other life on Earth and say we are doing it wrong because we do it differently. Wow, how many times do we do that in a day with religion, politics, food, clothing.... always comparing, never at ease with what is.

[Mato Kinze]

Originally Posted by yossarian

For me arguments about design and behaviour and "should we emulate animals" don't even enter into the equation.

For me it's a simple question pondered in the moment: do I shoot this deer, or do I let him live? I let my conscience decide. My conscience says to let him live.

And by the way, if we were to emulate animal behaviour we would all be pretty cruel people. Did you know that tigers will kill for fun? They will have a full belly, smell prey, kill the animal and then leave the corpse to rot. There are a million examples of cruel and brutal animals.

The behaviour of animals is not something I'm going to base my ethical decisions on.

We don't "emulate" animals, we ARE animals. That's the point. We are not separate and above the rest of the world, we're an integral part of it.

Cruelty is a Human construct. It doesn't apply to non-humans.

[torilink]

Originally Posted by Mato Kinze

Then how is that we have both incisors - designed to cut and tear animal flesh AND molars designed to grind plant material? We ARE omnivores by both design and definition.

do you - or anyone else here eat all of their food raw?

no animal other than man cooks his food, be it meat or vegetables - so I say we can't really look at other animals for how we should be.

It is my opinion that if you feel it is wrong to eat meat, you shouldn't eat it. If you feel it is wrong to eat meat raised by corporate farming in conditions you don't approve of, you shouldn't buy it or eat it. And if you don't enjoy vegetable s, don't eat them.

I believe the mind controls the body - the metabolism and health - so I think it is about your state of mind while eating and how you feel about what you are eating that makes all the difference.

[Buttercat Apocalypse]

I've started thinking about this a lot more and I'm not sure what my final position will be.

I don't mind killing. All things die. Hell, I figure if my body could be some use to someone after I'm done with it, why not?

I do object, though, to the suffering of animals. It strikes me that I have no idea what's happened to the thing I put in my mouth. Trouble is that goes for most products, not just meat.......

So there's some personal research I've committed myself to in the course of time.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Would it be accurate to say that you enjoy this way of life so much that you're willing to kill numerous animals?

I get the feeling that people are simply unaware of the fact that humans can be perfectly healthy on a 100% vegan diet.

There is simply no reason to eat meat besides one's own pleasure and/or habitual response.

Claiming some kind of ownership over the birth process of animals doesn't change the ethics of the situation at all. You can't claim birth. Ultimately the animals themselves drive their birthing process and just because you interfere in numerous ways does not put you in any kind of God-like position of life or death judgment over them.

Certainly there have been times when animals have chosen to die so that humans can survive - but those days are long past.

Today meat is eaten for pleasure and pleasure alone.

Would you agree with the statement that you raise, kill, and eat animals entirely for your own pleasure? Both the pleasure of the "way of life" and the pleasure of the taste of flesh?

I think all human motivations are toward pleasure or away from pain. You do what you do because you have convinced yourself of the "rightness" of your beliefs, I'm happy for you, meanwhile,I'll be doing what I feel compelled to do which is help meet the demand for beef. You are assigning human emotions to animals which is a classic "anti meat" tactic. Even if you were right about the "eat meat simply for pleasure" comment , what would be wrong with that?

An ironic thing I've noticed is that most anti meat people are pro-choice, as in pro-abortion and I've never understood the disconnect they must have in their brain to go to such great lengths to try and get others to conform to their beliefs about animals and their suffering but they will happily kill a baby if it inconveniences th