Of course, veganism is tops. — Wosret
This question is relatively trivial to the more pressing questions we have regarding our well-being - this issue is relatively minor. I would say it depends. It would be preferable if there was no meat eating, morally speaking. However, some people do need meat eating to function at top potential - for example athletes. The proteins that are found in meat are hard (though not impossible) to get elsewhere. If someone doesn't do any sports - I'd say morally speaking they should not eat meat (generally speaking - I can see exceptions even here).Is eating meat morally permissible? Why or why not? — darthbarracuda
With developed and developing countries faced with mounting health effects of obesity, diabetes, depression and inflammatory diseases. — swstephe
It is objectively better for the environment and would help alleviate the symptoms of overpopulation. It takes much more land to support food animals than it does vegetation. The majority of crops currently being grown ends up as feed for animals. With more vegetation available, we have more to use to create reusable energy. But you tell people that, and they still don't care. World problems and the environment are problems that can be put off for now and they don't need to take direct responsibility for the situation. — swstephe
But you tell people that and they still don't care. World problems and the environment are problems that can be put off for now. — swstephe
if there was a way to eat meat without contributing to the suffering of animals I think most of the weight of the argument against meat eating dissipates. — Sinderion
Animals suffering without human intervention doesn't justify us inflicting additional suffering on animals. — Sinderion
Whether we consume more meat than we *need* is a separate issue. The OP only asks if meat eating is ethically permissible, I argue there is a possible scenario where it is.
I am claiming here that eating meat is ethically permissible, but that it has negative environmental consequences, a critical issue because our human-and-animal-favorable environment is under so much threat. Eating meat is ethical provided that our impact on the environment is small (not zero). How much meat we eat, therefore, is relevant.
— Sinderion
I've already stipulated for environmental arguments, lab grown meat should (though I can't say for certain) be able to do away with factory farming, which should also defuse most of the environmentalist argument. — Sinderion
Regarding your last point, it's a controversial stand to take either way if you believe that the health of the individual trumps his free will or that his free will trumps his health. — Sinderion
Since animals necessarily suffer, regardless of whether humans interact with them or not, it is morally permissible to inflict suffering on animals.
There's a disconnect. On the one hand animals necessarily suffering is what happens, and I don't see how you've gotten to your conclusion that therefore it is ok for humans to cause their suffering. — Sinderion
of course there's a *reason* which is simply that it tastes good, and S wants to eat that which tastes good.
It doesn't justify inflicting harm towards animals or the environmental damage the industry is said to cause, but it's a reason. It's also the reason why I personally am hoping lab grown meat become commercially viable sooner rather than later. — Sinderion
But... Are we inflicting suffering on animals when we raise them in a humane manner, and then at some point, end their lives humanely? — Bitter Crank
Granted, there are ghastly ways of treating animals. Factory farming fits the definition of ghastly. Animals raised in these conditions most likely suffer stress, if not physical pain. Factory farming is used for no other purpose than to maximize profit with a minimum of expense. Somebody (the animals first) pays the price.
In a less intense regime of farming, where animals are not subjected to the conditions of factory farming, suffering can be minimized if not eliminated. Of course, traditional farming methods use more land, but it is used less intensively. Traditional farming can probably not produce the same quantity of meat as intense farming.
It's a trade off similar to what happens to workers in factories: Intense pursuit of profit, minimal expense, speed-up--all that--produces more suffering, and greater suffering. The solution to produce less suffering is to consume less production--buy fewer goods, eat less meat.
OR, we can automate the factory using robots to make things, or produce meat in tanks. — Bitter Crank
BTW, texturized vegetable protein extruded into a bin is not appealing. It has to be seasoned and combined with flavorful ingredients to taste good. I agree, at the point of production some of the vegetable protein substances are disgusting. Mock Duck, used in vegetarian asian dishes, is (I think) a wheat based product that is very chewy and tasty -- because of the sauce and seasoning. It doesn't taste like duck, exactly, but certainly not bad. Tofu is just untexturized vegetable protein. — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.