Your side of the debate doesn't have authority over what does and does not constitute decency. — Sapientia

I will define decency as the recognition of basic rights. That I have the decency to recognize another living being as having the will to live and can experience pain and suffering. And that I would not violate their right to live a life free from pain and suffering. And if I do that, I am discriminating against them in a way I wouldn't want done to myself.

It's not the same, because owning a slave is itself a wrong, whereas eating meat itself isn't a wrong. — Michael

Both scenarios (eating meat and owning slaves) are wrong because of the treatment that follows the action. Eating meat supports torture and slaughter. Being a slave owner, supports discrimination and cruelty. Both are about the treatment, not intrinsic wrong.

I eat meat because I like it, and you skirted my question... is there a difference between the butchering of humans and the butchering of animals based on your "trifecta"? — Cavacava

I'll answer your question first. I'd say both of the butchering scenarios are wrong, but butchering a human is worse, because I value human life over animal life. But at the basic level of human/animal rights, they are the same. Both (animal and human) deserve a basic right to life. Animals don't deserve rights that are more complex, such as the right to vote, or the right to drive a car. Hence why I think humans have more value, because they have a greater capacity for thought. But as far as butchering one over another, both are wrong, as both are infringing upon the well-being of a conscious creature.

And to discuss your justification of "I like it". Do you think this is a valid and sound justification for eating meat? And if we deployed the justification of "I like it" in another context, do you think it would be just as valid?

So if I stop eating meat then the factories will shut down? Of course not. — Michael

This is the same logic people who were opposed to slavery 200 years ago could have said. They could have stated "So if I stop owning slaves, will everyone else stop owning them? Of course not, so what's the point" - The point is, a slow gradual change. If more and more people stop, the demand for it will become less and less. And the supply will become less and less, until it doesn't exist any longer.

If this is the case, then they do not understand what is being done to them is "good" or "bad". They don't even associate "bad" with any pain they might feel, or "good" with pleasure. — Harry Hindu

But we, as humans, have a higher capacity for moral value and therefore have an obligation to use it to create less harm and less pain. Although a lion may not understand what is being done to them in a "good" or "bad" sense, they know that pain is something they want to avoid. And we share that same trait with them, as humans want to avoid pain as well. Whether you call it "good" or "bad" is irrelevant.

Must we be absolutist about this? — jastopher

For this issue, I'd say yes. Because it causes more pain and suffering than anything else. We kill something like 50+ BILLION animals per year, and I don't even think that includes sea creatures (whales, sharks, fish, etc.)

As far as your roadkill question, I wouldn't eat it for health reasons. But I wouldn't say there is anything ethically wrong with eating it, because no pain and/or suffering can come from eating it, Since it is already dead and can no longer feel pain or suffering.

but are not conscious of it to the level of an adult human being of sound mind — Sapientia

So you only treat animals with decency if they experience pain and suffering at the same conscious level of a human (which I don't even know how you would gauge or test that)?

I think that is intellectual BS. — Cavacava

You can say this is BS, but test it out for yourself. Why do you eat meat?

So animals are tortured and slaughtered for food because I eat meat? That doesn't seem to follow. — Michael

This is basic supply and demand. You demand the meat, so the factory farms supply it to you. And how do they supply it? By torturing and slaughtering the animals you demand. Not sure how you didn't get this?

So factory farms exist and harm the environment because I eat meat? That also doesn't seem to follow. — Michael

Same thing here. Supply and demand. Factory farms wouldn't exist if people stopped eating meat.

Also in reference to your science claim, I can link scientific journals that say otherwise. But again, you can research this for yourself. And I mentioned self-harm because you asked what harm eating meat causes. Self-harm is probably the least important, and I wouldn't call self-harm immoral (unless you are hurting someone else in the process).

I don't eat much meat, and what I do eat at home is free-range etc — jastopher

Organic, cage-free, free-range, etc... Are all irrelevant to the actual treatment and killing of these animals. You are one of the few to admit to inconsistency, but then continue to proceed in the same action. If I was being inconsistent within an ethical position, I would change my actions. I am still confused as to how people do not.

If it's the latter you seek, then I think that you carry a burden of justification. — Sapientia

Both humans and cows/chickens/pigs can experience pain and suffering. Therefore, at the very basic level, not violating the rights of another sentient being (human or non-human) is something we owe them. It's the absolute minimum a person can do to be considered a moral agent. We aren't obligated to befriend them, feed them, domesticate them or save them from predators. But at the most minuscule level of moral agency, we are obligated to NOT violate their rights. Their bodily rights (of consent) and their right to life (not die).

Or one can argue that given the different nervous system and brain structure, it's likely that whatever they feel isn't like what I feel, and so empathy is impossible. — Michael

Again, you can use this same logic between humans. Each individual human has different brain structure and a different nervous system (not identical). But empathy is NOT the ability to feel what another living being feels to 100% accuracy. It is about the practical and basic human/animal emotion and pain that we all feel. Adhering to this 100% absolute identical feeling of empathy is a red herring and is slightly absurd.

I will admit to biting the bullet despite the fact that the green and speciesist arguments are compelling. — jastopher

I am a bit confused on your position. Are you a meat eater?

So, why are you changing the subject? — Sapientia

This is why I asked you to clarify your question. You went to consciousness and I responded. Rephrase your question.

People are inconsistent in many things, including yourself — Harry Hindu

If I am inconsistent in something that is as easily changeable as a diet, I would change it.

What harm does eating meat cause? — Michael

Many different types. 1. Harm to the animals who are being tortured and slaughtered for food. 2. Harm to the environment. One of the leading causes of global warming (climate change) is our factory farms. 3. Harm to your own body. We have healthier alternatives to eating meat, which are plant based. The science is out there, research it for yourself.

But the main harm it does, that we should consider, is harming the animals. We contribute to the slaughter and torture of these animals, every time we eat meat. We pay someone else to kill animals for our consumption. Yet, we have plant-based alternatives that negate the need for meat.

Why would I need to justify eating meat? — Michael

Every action you initiate has a justification for why you commit that action. Especially when it comes to ethical/moral choices. Things like preferences (listening to different types of music), doesn't necessarily need a justification. But when it comes to decisions that may or may not cause harm, you'll need a valid justification for why you have initiated that action. Otherwise, your morality is based on nothing but feeling/motivation/desire. Which is scary.

But they don't have the same level of consciousness with regards to pain and suffering, so why should one be empathic and compassionate to the same degree — Sapientia

A severely mentally handicapped person, or a brain dead person, does not have the same level of consciousness with regards to pain and suffering than we do. But would that make it OK to kill them?

I eat meat because I like it. — Michael

Do you think the justification of "i like it" is valid and ethically consistent?

the evidence you present in favour of animals feeling (human-like) pain isn't evidence of this at all. — Michael

I'll argue the point with them when the time comes, but that statement in and of itself leads to an absurd position. But again, you are just playing devil's advocate, I assume. What is your position? Do you eat meat, if so why?

It's on page one. — Sapientia

So, if a species level of consciousness is to a point of being incapable to feel pain or suffering (maybe similar to a plant), then I wouldn't see a problem in killing it. But generally speaking, most animals (humans included) can experience a consciousness level that contains the ability to feel pain and suffering.

And they can be consistent by rejecting the claim that animals feel pain — Michael

Oh, I am fully aware a person can be consistent and also eat meat, but that usually leads to absurd positions or factually wrong positions. I guess that was assumed that people would not want to be factual wrong or absurd.

yes :sad: — TheMadFool

If you don't mind me asking. Why do you eat meat?

Do you base your moral foundation on consciousness, like Sam Harris, or not? — Sapientia

Yes I do. That I consider the well-being of sentient (conscious) living beings. What exactly is your question?

Hopefully, we'll begin to see sense and give up killing animals for food or fun. — TheMadFool

Do you eat meat?

The meat-eater claims that animals don't feel pain, so there position is consistent (even if factually wrong). — Michael

Being factually wrong is a big problem, don't you think?

Also, I am unclear of your position. Are you just defending the position that you do not hold. Are you, yourself, a meat eater? And do you believe we can empathize with animals in the context of feeling ANY pain or suffering.

If they don't feel pain in the same way that we do then we can't empathise with them — Michael

By that logic, you can use the same reasoning between two humans. Each person has a different capacity and tolerance for pain, and therefore does not feel pain in the same way another person does. You could get hit on the hand with a stick and feel pain differently than me, but this doesn't mean I cannot empathize with you just because our pain is not identical.

so how do you justify the suggestion that one should be just as empathic or compassionate towards factory farmed animals, like cows, chickens, and pigs, as towards humans? — Sapientia

Because they feel pain and suffering. And we should not cause needless pain and suffering to another living being. But to be more clear, why do you eat animals?

it is invalid to infer from the available evidence that animals feel pain (or at least that the pain they feel is like the pain that we feel). — Michael

They may not feel identical pain to the pain we experience, but they still do in fact feel pain. That is just a fact.

Ethics are simply rules for behaving within certain social structures and are arbitrary. — Harry Hindu

They can be arbitrary, but people can be inconsistent within their own arbitrary ethics. Which is part of the problem.

If lions, tigers, and alligators do it, then why would it be wrong? — Harry Hindu

Lions, tigers and alligators cannot moral assess actions and conform to ethical consistency. They don't have the capacity for moral evaluation like we do.

Certainly, other animals are not conscious to the same degree as humans. — Sapientia

agreed, but for the sake of argument, let's talk about our factory farmed animals (cows / chickens / pigs)

If you put a human's head over a hot flame, the human will try to move their head out of the way of the fire. If you put a pig's head over a hot flame, the pig will try to move their head out of the way of the fire. Both scenarios display the same basic experience for pain, and wanting to avoid it. Rejecting the idea that animals feel pain is absurd, IMO.

Saying animals don't feel pain is just wrong. They can reject it, but they would be in fact wrong. Animals feel pain. What are the signs of pain? Distress. Moving yourself out of the way of the thing that is causing pain. Blood. Etc... Animals and humans both share this basic trait. Saying we are incapable of empathizing with animals is just a false statement.

Plants are living things but cannot feel pain or suffering, because they do not have a nervous system or a brain. You value life and avoid pain and suffering. Every living creature on this planet (humans included) adheres to that basic level of wanting to live and wanting to avoid pain or suffering. Therefore, we shouldn't be causing pain to others.

Even if we were "designed" to be meat-eaters, as you put it, we currently live in a world where a plant-based diet can be sufficient enough to survive on. We don't 'need' to eat meat to survive, as many scientific journals actually state the opposite. That plant based diets are more healthy and more nutritious. So again, if we don't need to eat meat (and make animals suffer), why do we do it?

The most important factors of what it is like to be an animal, are the abilities to feel pain and suffering. They also share similar qualities of showing empathy within their own species. So if an animal feels pain and suffering, why would we kill it when we don't need to?