Killing/Eating Animals, Fish

[Streetwaves]

Alright guys. So I know there's a thread about eating meat that is stickied, but it'd be hard to read through the whole thing. Basically, I have a small moral dilemma, in that it isn't a question I've pondered enough to take a firm stance.

I went to a vegetarian forum, because I had heard that vegetarians often fall into different categories including "pesco-vegetarians". I have been trying to limit my consumption of red meat and eat more fish and vegetables, for health reasons and not for ethical reasons. I was going to ask about eating fish daily/weekly and the dangers of consuming that much mercury, but instead was banned immediately and called a "meat-eater" derogatorily even though I said I had an open mind about the possible immorality of eating animals and towards vegetarianism and would be content to lurk.

Although I do detest cruel treatment of animals, right now I'm just talking about the morality of killing an animal and eating it. Is it right or wrong? It would seem to me at first glance that animals, or at least most of them, are not aware enough of their "selves" that killing them would be immoral. In addition, it would seem like the line between something that is okay to kill and one that isn't would at some point have to be arbitrarily drawn. Meat-eaters draw it at humans, vegetarians draw it at animals. But what about plants, cells, etc.

Help me out!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I eat meat and love doing it and think there is nothing wrong with eating meat....with that said though I am going to stay out of the long debate which might come as a result as the animal rights people and the meat eaters fighting.

[thesadmafioso]

Tens of millions of people die as a result of starvation across the globe each year, I'll pay the well being of animals some attention once we can remedy that.

[ВАЛТЕР]

It is morally right. I mean, it is the way the food chain functions. I doubt a bear feels bad when he kills a deer or a salmon. Also, it is delicious and as a person from the Balkans I LOVE roasting lamb and pig on a spit. So personally I see no moral dilemma with it, and I am sure a massive majority of the world agrees with me. Morality in general is subjective though so if you find something you don't like about it then do as you wish. Since everyone's views of morality are different.

[Streetwaves]

Yeah, the only difference I can see between us killing animals and animals killing animals is that we are capable of recognizing the wrongness of our actions. So maybe that means we should hold ourselves accountable. But at the same time, maybe that difference makes it morally acceptable to kill animals? Obviously there is a difference between us if they find it acceptable to kill other animals.

Also, at least historically I can imagine areas where people may have lived with little to no access to anything but animal food sources.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Yeah, the only difference I can see between us killing animals and animals killing animals is that we are capable of recognizing the wrongness of our actions. So maybe that means we should hold ourselves accountable. But at the same time, maybe that difference makes it morally acceptable to kill animals? Obviously there is a difference between us if they find it acceptable to kill other animals.

Also, at least historically I can imagine areas where people may have lived with little to no access to anything but animal food sources.

Morality is subjective. I see nothing wrong with killing an animal to eat it. Maybe you or someone else may but like I said it is subjective so I say make up your mind and live and let live. It is a situation where there is no "right" or "wrong" answer.

[miltonwasfried...man]

Tens of millions of people die as a result of starvation across the globe each year, I'll pay the well being of animals some attention once we can remedy that.

Eating meat is ridiculously inefficient. 70% of the grain and cereals produced in the USA alone are used to feed livestock. All of that farm land could be used to grow food for these starving people if less of us ate meat. 16 pounds of grain are needed to produce 1 pound of meat, not to mention the water and energy needed as well. So maybe if you paid "the well being of animals some attention" there wouldn't be as maybe starving people.

[MarxSchmarx]

It is morally right. I mean, it is the way the food chain functions. I doubt a bear feels bad when he kills a deer or a salmon. Also, it is delicious and as a person from the Balkans I LOVE roasting lamb and pig on a spit. So personally I see no moral dilemma with it, and I am sure a massive majority of the world agrees with me. Morality in general is subjective though so if you find something you don't like about it then do as you wish. Since everyone's views of morality are different.

I agree that morality is subjective - so the question is not "is it morally right?" but "am I comfortable with it?"

Yet I worry about appeals to the natural order of things. After all, bears fight viciously with each other over things like what tree they can scratch their back on. I think we humans are better than that, or the rest of the natural order of things.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Although I do detest cruel treatment of animals, right now I'm just talking about the morality of killing an animal and eating it. Is it right or wrong? It would seem to me at first glance that animals, or at least most of them, are not aware enough of their "selves" that killing them would be immoral. In addition, it would seem like the line between something that is okay to kill and one that isn't would at some point have to be arbitrarily drawn. Meat-eaters draw it at humans, vegetarians draw it at animals. But what about plants, cells, etc.

It depends on how the animal is killed, because in a number of instances it is aware of the harm.

There's also the case of tearing live flesh from it, and it is definitely aware of this cruel treatment.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Kill a Panda, if they weren't endangered, and I'd eat it.

[thesadmafioso]

Eating meat is ridiculously inefficient. 70% of the grain and cereals produced in the USA alone are used to feed livestock. All of that farm land could be used to grow food for these starving people if less of us ate meat. 16 pounds of grain are needed to produce 1 pound of meat, not to mention the water and energy needed as well. So maybe if you paid "the well being of animals some attention" there wouldn't be as maybe starving people.

I wasn't speaking so much to the technical efficiency of it as I was to the general morality surrounding the issue.

[CommunityBeliever]

We already produce enough food with industrial agriculture to feed the human population many times over without ever having to resort to meat, so the "tens of millions people that die of starvation every year" is a social capitalist-induced problem, not a technical problem.

With the use of newly emerging agricultural technologies, like open-ocean farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariculture), and vertical farming (http://www.verticalfarm.com/)with hydroponics/aeroponics/aquaponics and in vitro meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) we raise our agricultural productivity to new heights and we will able to produce billions of gallons of milk as well as billions of pound of cheese and other animal products. This will result in a post-scarcity super-abundance of these products.

On the other hand, the anti-vegan process of meat-production continues to be considerably inefficient, waste huge amounts of land/water/food/energy/labor, pollute the environment, cause significant health problems in contemporary human animals (heart disease, cancer, etc), lead to objections in morally-sensitive individuals, etc.

http://hplusmagazine.com/2009/11/17/eight-ways-vitro-meat-will-change-our-lives/

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I honestly don't see anything immoral (generally speaking) with the killing and eating of animals and fish. With animals methods such as dhabiha seem pretty humane, quick and so on and I don't really have a problem with it. Fish can't feel the sensation of pain so any argument that mentions or asserts the notion of cruelty seems rather silly. Things do need to be reformed as far as the modern meat industry is concerned but generally speaking the killing and eating of animals if done in a quick and humane way seems completely moral. I'm also a Anthropocentrist and people are indeed starving in the world which should be taken into account.

[thesadmafioso]

We already produce enough food with industrial agriculture to feed the human population many times over without ever having to resort to meat, so the "tens of millions people that die of starvation every year" is a social capitalist-induced problem, not a technical problem.

With the use of newly emerging agricultural technologies, like open-ocean farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariculture), and vertical farming (http://www.verticalfarm.com/)with hydroponics/aeroponics/aquaponics and in vitro meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) we raise our agricultural productivity to new heights and we will able to produce billions of gallons of milk as well as billions of pound of cheese and other animal products. This will result in a post-scarcity super-abundance of these products.

On the other hand, the anti-vegan process of meat-production continues to be considerably inefficient, waste huge amounts of land/water/food/energy/labor, pollute the environment, cause significant health problems in contemporary human animals (heart disease, cancer, etc), lead to objections in morally-sensitive individuals, etc.

http://hplusmagazine.com/2009/11/17/eight-ways-vitro-meat-will-change-our-lives/

I'm fully aware that food production as it currently stands could eradicate the currently widespread poverty of food access and that the existence of such is entirely the result of the dominant global position of capitalism, I was merely attempting to set in place a question of precedent and priority. I would rather see starvation and malnutrition eradicated before I direct my food related worries of morality towards the welfare of animals. By and large, mass consumption of meat is immensely ineffective and damaging to the environment, but that isn't enough to comment on the actual morality of it, which is sort of the subject of this topic.

And meat still provides a robust source of protein and other assorted nutrients which are otherwise less common and accessible to many. Yes, it can be incredibly harmful in certain manifestations and when consumed in excess, but it can still be a part of a healthy diet in moderation for many individuals. Vegan diets can be just as harmful to individuals, though in different ways, when not done properly.

[Streetwaves]

But is the reason we don't kill something because it feels pain or suffering? If we can eliminate pain and suffering when killing an animal, we possibly could kill a human ad technically not have caused pain and suffering.

A better reason I would think would simply be we don't kill something because that's infringing upon it's inherent right to life (human or animal). But if we say that, I see problems arising with the morality of killing or eating plants. Thoughts?

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

But is the reason we don't kill something because it feels pain or suffering? If we can eliminate pain and suffering when killing an animal, we possibly could kill a human ad technically not have caused pain and suffering.

Good point.


A better reason I would think would simply be we don't kill something because that's infringing upon it's inherent right to life (human or animal). But if we say that, I see problems arising with the morality of killing or eating plants. Thoughts?

I believe the usual argument against this would be that animals (humans included) are sentient beings whereas plants are not.

[Princess Luna]

Tens of millions of people die as a result of starvation across the globe each year, I'll pay the well being of animals some attention once we can remedy that.
You can feed a lot more people with the grain it takes to raise a cow, then from the meat you get, once the cow is slaughtered

[CommunityBeliever]

And meat still provides a robust source of protein and other assorted nutrients which are otherwise less common and accessible to many. Yes, it can be incredibly harmful in certain manifestations and when consumed in excess, but it can still be a part of a healthy diet in moderation for many individuals. Vegan diets can be just as harmful to individuals, though in different ways, when not done properly. The "protein" argument is certainly what is conveyed by the meat industry's advertisements. We can easily do without animal protein and be perfectly healthy/athletic, as me and many others already are.

[thesadmafioso]

The "protein" argument is certainly what is conveyed by the meat industry's advertisements. We can easily do without animal protein and be perfectly healthy/athletic, as me and many others already are.

Hence why I never denied the possibility of such a diet and rather choose to comment on accessibility. And just because we can do away with it doesn't mean that there is any salient moral reason to do so.

[Streetwaves]

You can feed a lot more people with the grain it takes to raise a cow, then from the meat you get, once the cow is slaughtered

I do not believe that grain and cow meat are on an equivalent level nutrient-wise.

As far as sentience goes, that's basically the same argument as before. The animal's sentience is not only not equivalent to ours, it also seems to be of little consequence if we kill it during its sleep in a painless way.

I'm sort of wondering whether there is no real answer here, or whether the human capacity to be a moral agent doesn't always work within the "facts of life"; the fact that we do need to consume organisms that are alive or once were, plant or animal.

[Smyg]

Having worked with sheep and cows, I often find myself disgusted at the fact that I eat meat.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But is the reason we don't kill something because it feels pain or suffering? If we can eliminate pain and suffering when killing an animal, we possibly could kill a human ad technically not have caused pain and suffering.

A better reason I would think would simply be we don't kill something because that's infringing upon it's inherent right to life (human or animal). But if we say that, I see problems arising with the morality of killing or eating plants. Thoughts?

The problem is that "rights" are an artificial conception made up by humans for their own purposes. They are not concepts that non-human animals, even the smartest ones, have demonstrated an understanding of in any meaningful way.


Having worked with sheep and cows, I often find myself disgusted at the fact that I eat meat.

Having lived for 6-odd years in an area filled with sheep (as well as having briefly worked in a slaughterhouse in said area), I have to say I have no qualms at all about eating meat.

Although having said that, I decided a while ago to avoid cod and tuna because modern ocean fishing practices make me rage.

[Luís Henrique]

http://www.petersmeats.com.au/images/beef-recipes.jpg

Yum.

Why do people believe that eating or not eating meat is in any way related to politics?

Luís Henrique

[EvilRedGuy]

Although having said that, I decided a while ago to avoid cod and tuna because modern ocean fishing practices make me rage.


So you defend fish not mammals, lol?

I thought you didn't care about the well-being of sentient beings. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you defend fish not mammals, lol?

No, I just don't like the idea of stripping ecosystems bare using hunter-gatherer methods enhanced with industrial technology. I'll happily eat farmed fish (or prawns, which are sort-of farmed), and I think we should be improving our aquaculture capabilities, which lag behind our agricultural capabilities.


I thought you didn't care about the well-being of sentient beings. :rolleyes:

My motives are merely that of enlightened self-interest.

[Ocean Seal]

They kicked you off their forum for eating meat. Yep, gotta love that moralistic preaching. Don't eat too much meat, hopefully someday we'll be able to control how we raise animals in healthy environments, and that'll be that. Don't eat meat if you don't want to, but its not a moral dilemma which society needs to deal with and but into.

[StoneFrog]

The only issue i have with eating meat is the environmental impacts on raising animals to eat, you have to feed them and use more resources to get that animal to the point you want to eat it.

Moral issues, i got none about killing an animal to eat it; keeping them in small areas and treating them like shit maybe.

[Yugo45]

There's nothing wrong in eating meat.. What's wrong is treating them like shit, feeding them steroids which make them unable to move from birth to death, etc.

[Georgist]

Tens of millions of people die as a result of starvation across the globe each year, I'll pay the well being of animals some attention once we can remedy that.

It takes 20 pounds of grain to obtain a single pound of meat. Go figure.

[praxis1966]

It takes 20 pounds of grain to obtain a single pound of meat. Go figure.

It's far worse than that actually. I've seen studies that say the energy input to output ratio involved in cattle farming is on the order of 54:1. About the most efficient form of livestock farming is chickens, and that's still on the order of 4:1 from what I've read. Now I know some people here are concerned about the differences in nutrition for humans in terms of protein between consuming animals which consume grain and consuming the actual grain itself, but the fact is that if you converted even half the farmland used to produce grain for cattle (which as has been stated accounts for 80% of the grain production in the US annually) into soy farming you could easily remedy this problem.

Furthermore, in famine riddled areas, you're going to be hard pressed to get meat where it needs to go before it spoils... There's a reason why AFAIK most of the food aid that goes to places suffering famine goes in the form of grain.

As an aside, an interesting statistic I read once: If Americans reduced their annual beef consumption by just 10%, you could feed 100 million people a year with the excess grain.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's far worse than that actually. I've seen studies that say the energy input to output ratio involved in cattle farming is on the order of 54:1. About the most efficient form of livestock farming is chickens, and that's still on the order of 4:1 from what I've read. Now I know some people here are concerned about the differences in nutrition for humans in terms of protein between consuming animals which consume grain and consuming the actual grain itself, but the fact is that if you converted even half the farmland used to produce grain for cattle (which as has been stated accounts for 80% of the grain production in the US annually) into soy farming you could easily remedy this problem.

It's not the amount of food we're producing that's the problem, it's the distribution of it.


Furthermore, in famine riddled areas, you're going to be hard pressed to get meat where it needs to go before it spoils... There's a reason why AFAIK most of the food aid that goes to places suffering famine goes in the form of grain.

There are ways of preserving meat that do not require refrigeration and have been used for centuries. Drying, salting, smoking etc. I suspect the reason they use bland-ass grain in food aid is because if it was richer, including meat, then it's possible that malnourished people eating the food aid might die because it's "too much too soon".


As an aside, an interesting statistic I read once: If Americans reduced their annual beef consumption by just 10%, you could feed 100 million people a year with the excess grain.

These kind of statistics have the implicit assumption that any starvation in the world is down to a global lack of food, which simply isn't true.

[thefinalmarch]

I love meat and I'll be damned if anyone ever tries to take it away from me.

[teflon_john]

fuck animals. i mean you can treat them as horribly or as humanely as you want, they still don't matter. people matter.

[teflon_john]

wait okay nevermind, maybe not endangered species or cool ones like frogs or slugs or tardigrades. man i don't know meat tastes good so whatever.

[EvilRedGuy]

^Psychopath :laugh:

But seriously, how animals are endangered or not dosen't matter what matter is the ethical threatment of all animals, painless harvesting and better standard of living for them, this way meat also becomes better quality/taste better. As for furfarming, i'd ban it we can create far better synthetic fur that the need to kill an animal for, same could be said when we have reached VAT-produced meat, better customizing and construction in meat.

[Nox]

Banned from a forum for doing something that's totally natural to humans... There's a first for everything.

[EvilRedGuy]

Banned from a forum for doing something that's totally natural to humans... There's a first for everything.

Who are you talking to? Just wondering, your post is confusing.:confused:

[Nox]

Who are you talking to? Just wondering, your post is confusing.:confused:

The OP.

[Nox]

I just don't like the idea of stripping ecosystems bare using hunter-gatherer methods enhanced with industrial technology. I'll happily eat farmed fish (or prawns, which are sort-of farmed), and I think we should be improving our aquaculture capabilities, which lag behind our agricultural capabilities.

Bang on.

Fucking signature-worthy.

[Zav]

Alright guys. So I know there's a thread about eating meat that is stickied, but it'd be hard to read through the whole thing. Basically, I have a small moral dilemma, in that it isn't a question I've pondered enough to take a firm stance.

I went to a vegetarian forum, because I had heard that vegetarians often fall into different categories including "pesco-vegetarians". I have been trying to limit my consumption of red meat and eat more fish and vegetables, for health reasons and not for ethical reasons. I was going to ask about eating fish daily/weekly and the dangers of consuming that much mercury, but instead was banned immediately and called a "meat-eater" derogatorily even though I said I had an open mind about the possible immorality of eating animals and towards vegetarianism and would be content to lurk.

Although I do detest cruel treatment of animals, right now I'm just talking about the morality of killing an animal and eating it. Is it right or wrong? It would seem to me at first glance that animals, or at least most of them, are not aware enough of their "selves" that killing them would be immoral. In addition, it would seem like the line between something that is okay to kill and one that isn't would at some point have to be arbitrarily drawn. Meat-eaters draw it at humans, vegetarians draw it at animals. But what about plants, cells, etc.

Help me out!
The same shit happens here, too. See what happens when you suggest Primitivism as a valid philosophy.

I draw the line at anything with a nervous system.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The same shit happens here, too. See what happens when you suggest Primitivism as a valid philosophy.

I draw the line at anything with a nervous system.

Why? What is the difference between eating prawns and exterminating roaches infesting your home? Both involve organisms with nervous systems, and arguably the latter activity involves more pain on the part of the organisms involved.

Why do prawns have a greater right to life than roaches?