Ethics of Eating Meat

[Joeschmoe]

Jeff,

In the study of ethics science is not needed or entirely usefull. There are ethical argumants both ways but I'm not sure what yours are. Could you please elaberate on what logical debate you would use in trying to advocate that eating animal products is ethical?

I believe that the strongest ethical argument agains using animal products as procured from facotry farms, or any domestic situation, would be that of abuse of the power postion. It's been done with slavery, naziism, and institutional bigotry of all sorts. That's a situation where a person will justify their actions, due to a necesity or want, when they are in a position of power over another individual. I don't argue that these are the same issue, or that livestock are human. They are however individuals on the bottom half of a power situation. While I would never equate livestock with classes of people, many in the past have. They equated genders, races, or people with different belief systems with animals, and therefore disposable, and exploitable. They had ethical arguments to back up their views. Those arguments are now considered false, and are largely viewed with disgust.

So what is your view of the actual ethics of eating meat? i actually think that question would need to be refrazed as the act of eating meat has little ethical relevence. How that meat was procured is of more interest. So what is your stance on the ethics of raising animals for human consumption in this kind of power situation? How would you justify it in an ethical argument?

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

Jeff,

In the study of ethics science is not needed or entirely usefull. There are ethical argumants both ways but I'm not sure what yours are. Could you please elaberate on what logical debate you would use in trying to advocate that eating animal products is ethical?

I believe that the strongest ethical argument agains using animal products as procured from facotry farms, or any domestic situation, would be that of abuse of the power postion. It's been done with slavery, naziism, and institutional bigotry of all sorts. That's a situation where a person will justify their actions, due to a necesity or want, when they are in a position of power over another individual. I don't argue that these are the same issue, or that livestock are human. They are however individuals on the bottom half of a power situation. While I would never equate livestock with classes of people, many in the past have. They equated genders, races, or people with different belief systems with animals, and therefore disposable, and exploitable. They had ethical arguments to back up their views. Those arguments are now considered false, and are largely viewed with disgust.

So what is your view of the actual ethics of eating meat? i actually think that question would need to be refrazed as the act of eating meat has little ethical relevence. How that meat was procured is of more interest. So what is your stance on the ethics of raising animals for human consumption in this kind of power situation? How would you justify it in an ethical argument?

I view all agriculture products, including beef, as a "resource" to be used/consumed. We used to hunt animals with rocks and spears or drove them over a cliff, which was probably the first mass method of attaining large quantities of meat. At some point we began to domesticate animals so we did not have to "hunt" them, they just followed us across the plains or lived very likely right along side of us. Those people did not have the hangups about meat and hunting/killing we have now because it was part of everyday life. Actually when you look at the time-line from a larger perspective it's been a very short time since we, for the most part, relegated the work of killing our own food to someone else for pay, tis is when all the hoopla over anti-meat got started. People were removed from the process for a couple generations and now most are very squeamish about even the thought of killing a critter for their meal. So, the next actor on the scene is the one who is disgusted by the thought of the process and declares it wrong (much like the far right considers homosexuals wrong).


My argument for it being OK to kill animals and eat them is that it is part of the natural order of the planet, plants take from the soil, and pass their nutrients up the chain to a deer, cow,chicken etc.... then the lion,wolf,domestic cat, hawk, human ....whatever takes it up one more level. That fact is why many try to make the "man is a herbivore" argument stick , because that's one way they can justify their desire to control other peoples choices. If man were a herbivore, and he's not, you could say logically "man should not eat meat." The issue of our proper diet is not decided strictly by examining our bodies, I believe choice plays a part in the equation. Man is a survivor, and when pressed, can withstand a great deal of hardship. One of our evolutionary assets is an omnivorous diet.

The real problem concerning Linehans arguments is not, "eating meat", it's factory farming, it's the bringing all the small operations together and creating large facilities that cannot micro-manage the process as it should be.

In the small town where I grew up there was a small packing plant that might kill 5 cows a day on a busy day, it was always clean outside and inside, wash water went into a perc system and solids were sold to hog farmers (hogs are omnivores like us) and a fertilizer company for making bone meal. The people did not hate their job so they didn't treat the animals badly. The big places put them out of business because they are more efficient cost wise and it created big messes to dispose of and large groups of unsupervised employees.

[Joeschmoe]

I just want it to be known that I think any of the herbivore/omnivore arguments are insufficient as far as ethical choices go. But that holds for the "humans are obviously meant to eat meat" arguments too. And the only reason I bring up the fact that we are most similar to herbivores is to take the wind out of that kind of reasoning. It's not that clear cut, or even a solid base for an ethical argument, whichever side is being argued.

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

The thread is about ethics, not rights.



It's easy to trade crops. Countries do it all the time.



The poor starve for many reasons.

One of those reasons is that we feed our crops to livestock instead of feeding them to the starving.



I'd need a stack of offenders first.



Your farm is mostly sustainable and ethically ran.

90% of meat that is eaten is from very large farms, not farms like yours.

Eating meat creates more perceived demand with every meal. Creating demand then makes even the highly destructive actions of industrial farms seem necessary.

But eating meat isn't necessary. Eating meat isn't something people have to do. In fact, the vegetarian diet has been proven healthier time and time again.

So, when a person eats meat they harm their own health. They also misallocate resources that could be better used to help the hungry. Also, they create more demand for a destructive, unsustainably produced product that harms the environment in numerous ways.

Eating meat is not ethical. It harms everyone involved.



If someone did exactly what you do with cats or Labradors or rats, would you see the meaning?



Yes, thank God for people being destructive as a course of habit. It gives our lives meaning.



If you say so.

I don't think people's lives getting flushed down the toilet is very funny, but that's just me.



What can I say to that?

Maybe you don't take logic or research seriously enough?



I don't eat beef. It's not ethical.

eth·ics –plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

You know, it is ok to have a strong belief on what is ethical for you to do. But when you begin saying others are inethical, it seems dictatorial to me; counterproductive even if they are pursueing a lifestyle that is generally not hurting anyone.

So what you are trying to say, I think, is that eating meat is wrong. Because you think somehow if we stopped eating meat, less people would starve in the world. That connection seems pretty loose. What makes you think that is even close to being a true statement?

I get it that you think eating meat is evil. So why is it evil? Is it always evil? Were the native americans evil when they ate the buffalo? And the native americans who, every year, caught the spawning salmon in the pacific northwest, and smoked that salmon for their food all year, were they evil? Would you outlaw that 'meat-eating' as well?

I'm guessing, but I would conjecture this issue is about a lot more than eating meat for you.

For me, when you paint everyone 'evil' with such a far-reaching brush (all meateaters), you just lose credibility with your audience.

You speak of logic and reasoning, but your arguments are not necessarily logical, and don't seem that reasonable to me.

But then, I am so thankful for my neighbors who raise cattle. They own generational family farms and they keep them beautifully (which isn't easy, because they don't make tons of money on raising 10-20 head annually). They choose not to sell to developers, who would love to turn this beautiful acreage into giant subdivisions so the suburban folks can get a taste of country life, I get to enjoy the views and the cows have a lovely life. I get to see the stars at night, because the land is not yet covered with house after house after house.

If we all changed how we ate, I doubt it would have any impact on third world countries.

Anyway, if I were trying to change behaviors, I would not paint them 'wrong' with such a broad brush.

Just my thoughts. Belle,

[Joeschmoe]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

I'm guessing, but I would conjecture this issue is about a lot more than eating meat for you.

Can you please simply answer the points brought up by others? I see a lot of people questioning the motives, mood, and mental health of others. If you want to discuss the issue I think it would be more helpful to simply respond to arguments and keep it out of personal criticisms.

[bellemeadows]

Eating meat is not ethically wrong. What is wrong is how we approach eating meat as a culture; the running of factory farms and inhumane treatment of animals is not caused by eating meat. It is caused by a culture that 'husbands' resources, and treats our 'mother earth' as a means to whatever end we have in mind.

Factory farming and the inhumane treatment of animals is caused by a deep disrespect and disregard of the world and those who share it with us, in favor or personal profit and gain.

This is a cultural issue. This attitude of disrespect and using others and resources to suit our personal agenda is a deep part of our culture. We, culturally, believe there is no other way; and we have set up our economy so that it does appear there is no other way. Tibetan culture and eskimo culture demonstrate that this is not necessarily true; there are alternatives.

We as individuals, can only do the best we can to demonstrate there are other ways. Other ways, to me, does not show up by turning this one issue into one of ethics. Eating meat is not ethically wrong. Our entire cultural context is one of destruction of our environment, and disregarding the needs of others, to serve our own lifestyle.

Driving cars is not wrong. But when you throw so many emissions into the air that you cause your neighbors across the sea to have acid rain, and you change the weather, then you have taken it to the point that there is a problem. There have been so many options at our disposal to avoid this. There was a engine modification discovered in the '50s that would allow those big tanky cars to operate with 60 mpg efficiency. It was squashed, in the name of profit; purchased by one of the big car companies in america, and hidden away, never to be found again.

So, to me, at the root of the issue, is the deep disregard and disrespect we hold for others and our world. What do I, personally, do about that. Well, I try to walk the line of respect and regard as best I can; in the end all we can address is our own attitudes and behaviors.

And as for addressing starvation around the world; how about we start by addressing starvation of our neighbors. Starvation in the US is a very real issue. If we can't solve it here, what makes you think we can solve it anywhere else.

What has bothered me about this discussion is those who focus in on a symptom of the problem as the problem. There will be many, many symptoms until the underlying culture changes. And how do we change culture; well we change it one person at a time until we reach the tipping point. To become accusatory and to paint one behavior (eating meat) as the problem is just plain short-sighted; a very good example of linear thinking. To treat those who eat meat with disrespect, is to me, just another symptom of how our culture is -- in the end that kind of behavior and attitude is really just part of the problem, since it is symptom-specific, and it does nothing to change the culture of disrespect and disregard for others (including animals) for personal gain. In my opinion it weighs in on the side of force, and so it reinforces our resistance to change and becomes counter-productive.

Did you know that when you make people do something, because you require it, there is ALWAYS a pushback. That discussion in the book Power Verses Force to me is very helpful in understanding what is important in effecting change. Whenever you force, you create equal resistance. So real change does not come by forcing or insisting (by pushing and disrespecting; by shaming and blaming) -- I have been involved in organizational behavior for decades; I know this is true not just because a book says it is true, but because I see the pushback whenever change is forced. Ghandi did not force. And yet he effected great change in the world.

There you go. Blessings from Belle,

[Mato Kinze]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

Eating meat is not ethically wrong. What is wrong is how we approach eating meat as a culture; the running of factory farms and inhumane treatment of animals is not caused by eating meat. It is caused by a culture that 'husbands' resources, and treats our 'mother earth' as a means to whatever end we have in mind.

Factory farming and the inhumane treatment of animals is caused by a deep disrespect and disregard of the world and those who share it with us, in favor or personal profit and gain.

This is a cultural issue. This attitude of disrespect and using others and resources to suit our personal agenda is a deep part of our culture. We, culturally, believe there is no other way; and we have set up our economy so that it does appear there is no other way. Tibetan culture and eskimo culture demonstrate that this is not necessarily true; there are alternatives.

We as individuals, can only do the best we can to demonstrate there are other ways. Other ways, to me, does not show up by turning this one issue into one of ethics. Eating meat is not ethically wrong. Our entire cultural context is one of destruction of our environment, and disregarding the needs of others, to serve our own lifestyle.

Driving cars is not wrong. But when you throw so many emissions into the air that you cause your neighbors across the sea to have acid rain, and you change the weather, then you have taken it to the point that there is a problem. There have been so many options at our disposal to avoid this. There was a engine modification discovered in the '50s that would allow those big tanky cars to operate with 60 mpg efficiency. It was squashed, in the name of profit; purchased by one of the big car companies in america, and hidden away, never to be found again.

So, to me, at the root of the issue, is the deep disregard and disrespect we hold for others and our world. What do I, personally, do about that. Well, I try to walk the line of respect and regard as best I can; in the end all we can address is our own attitudes and behaviors.

And as for addressing starvation around the world; how about we start by addressing starvation of our neighbors. Starvation in the US is a very real issue. If we can't solve it here, what makes you think we can solve it anywhere else.

What has bothered me about this discussion is those who focus in on a symptom of the problem as the problem. There will be many, many symptoms until the underlying culture changes. And how do we change culture; well we change it one person at a time until we reach the tipping point. To become accusatory and to paint one behavior (eating meat) as the problem is just plain short-sighted; a very good example of linear thinking. To treat those who eat meat with disrespect, is to me, just another symptom of how our culture is -- in the end that kind of behavior and attitude is really just part of the problem, since it is symptom-specific, and it does nothing to change the culture of disrespect and disregard for others (including animals) for personal gain. In my opinion it weighs in on the side of force, and so it reinforces our resistance to change and becomes counter-productive.

Did you know that when you make people do something, because you require it, there is ALWAYS a pushback. That discussion in the book Power Verses Force to me is very helpful in understanding what is important in effecting change. Whenever you force, you create equal resistance. So real change does not come by forcing or insisting (by pushing and disrespecting; by shaming and blaming) -- I have been involved in organizational behavior for decades; I know this is true not just because a book says it is true, but because I see the pushback whenever change is forced. Ghandi did not force. And yet he effected great change in the world.

There you go. Blessings from Belle,

Aho! (Amen)

[ctutt]

Originally Posted by Mato Kinze

I don't feel picked on... yet... (Though I suspect that's coming. As you said, "...of all places on the net, Steve Pavlina?") But I do feel that you seem to be missing the point.

The lesson the young man in question learned was not killing - he could do that the second he picked up a gun. The lesson he learned was one of understanding his place in this world and that the ability to choose to show respect (or not to show respect) to all our relations with regards to our actions and vis-a-vis our place is not just an ability, but a responsibility unique to humans and the human experience.

We are hunters. We hunt, kill and eat other animals to survive. The fact that in the last one hundred years - out of the last FORTY THOUSAND - we have had the luxury of choosing not to be, does not change our nature or our place in the Great Circle. I would argue that it is because of this luxury that we have FORGOTTEN what our place in the Great Circle truly is.

Do not attempt to assign human emotions or "feelings" to anything other than a human. It's nonsensical. To say that anything other than a human would react, respond, or think like a human is ignorant and illconceived at best and arrogant at worst. To ask if it was respectful to the deer's mother or relatives shows me two things: 1. You don't think that you are a relative of this particular - or possibly any - deer, and 2. You seem to think that deer have the same understanding or experience of the world that you or I do. Do you believe that the deer in question distiguishes a Human predator any differently than a wolf pack, pack of coyotes, mountain lion, or any other predator? Certainly not. Are we, then, to assign ourselve some other, more lofty position? I don't believe so. And that is the point of the lesson the young man learned from my friend when he chose to select the deer that was offering herself instead of the 8 point buck that he could've had as a trophy. That was respecting the sacrifice of that deer. A sacrifice that was accepted by the deer and communicated to the hunter.

When we acknowledge who and what we are with clarity and authenticity, without prejudice or arrogance, we can begin to once again understand our place in this world.

Well said.

Literally ALL of the domestic animals we 'choose' to EAT are bred, hatched, grown and 'processed' for that specific purpose else they would not even exist for the most part. We humans agreed to come into this 'reality' and so did they. It's all a part of the grand 'PLAY (movie) of life. All is energy and nothing is ever lost, only experienced, or not. We didn't reach our levels of intellect or accomplishment by eating grass and fruit. We are a little higher up in the food chain than that.
Charles Tutt