I do know they have to go through regular pregnancies every year in order to keep producing milk — Bitter Crank

I did confirm this, although humans will continue producing milk (well, women at least) after they give birth for as long as they are milked. It might therefore be easier to have women instead of cows be available for milk production. It's something to think about if you're a recent mother in need of work.

I did confirm this, although humans will continue producing milk (well, women at least) after they give birth for as long as they are milked. It might therefore be easier to have women instead of cows be available for milk production. It's something to think about if you're a recent mother in need of work. — Hanover

I do recall that human breast milk ice cream was a thing for a while. Gives whole new meaning to the term "milk shake"...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-12569011

When I eat seafood and fish I do so guilt free.

When I eat any other kind of meat I feel guilty.

I still do it. I just feel guilty about it.

I eat meat because I support the existence of a more natural environment. In our world of monoculture, with billions of acres of wheat, or veg grown under glass, it is nice the think that sheep are still allowed to graze on pasture, thus giving back the the environment that which a purely vegetarian economy could never do: SHIT.
My local environment since WW2 has been turned over to mainly wheat production, in a cycle that involves the utter dependancy on heavy machinery for deep ploughing and the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides. The result is the complete loss of all top soil for miles and miles all along the Southern coast of the UK. I more recent years, sheep have been increasingly introduced and eventually it is hoped that some of that topsoil- now at the bottom of the sea shall begin to recover.

The recovery of the environment has to include animals. If we cannot at least mimic the natural cycles of nature then we are doomed to destroy the earth.

My local environment since WW2 has been turned over to mainly wheat production, in a cycle that involves the utter dependancy on heavy machinery for deep ploughing and the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides. — Hogrider

It's the same in the midwestern part of the United States -- well, most parts of the US. Corn (maize), wheat, soybeans. On some fields, the energy input required exceeds the energy output per acre. Cheap fuel has made this possible, that and government support.

Topsoil run off is relatively easy to control (minimum tillage, abandoning fields that are too steep, contour and terrace formation, etc). Not that we are doing a good job, but we do uno how. Worse is the runoff of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. There is a large and growing dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico from eutrofication (loss of dissolved oxygen) as a result.

Corporate farming pursues short term goals; fuck the future.

BTW, animals aren't required to return the nutrients of plants to the soil. Yes, animal shit is a very good fertilizer, but green manure (raw vegetation) works well too. That's partly the idea of minimum tillage -- leave the chaff on the field where it falls; don't plow the field; plant through the vegetative mat.

Hilly areas are well suited to grazing because such ground should absolutely not be plowed, and cattle do enrich the soil without adding chemicals. They just chew, digest, shit, and produce milk and meat. Raising cattle in feed lots served by huge grain fields is a less ecological solution. There are many hilly areas in the country (UK, too) where bovine grazing shouldn't cause too many problems. Sheep and goats are short grazers -- biting off plants close to the ground. Pigs are totally incompatible with grazing land -- their rooting around destroys pasturage and leads to erosion. Goats have the narrow advantage of eating a wider variety of plants -- things that cows won't gladly eat.

What I am in favor of is reducing the quantity of meat and milk products consumed. Modest consumption of meat and fresh milk is sustainable.

People kill animals for food. Though we do in fact use every part of the animal for something. Like hooves are used for glue. New advances are being made which might make animal deaths for food a thing of a past but theres still a number of things we kill animals to make. So there is a number of industrys we would have to change in order to change for the blood shed to end. That said im very much against the conditions we keep our animals in. Its not healthy for the animals to be living in thier on poop and piss, bleeding puss filled, and being pumped with so many hormones thier legs break. Its also very unhealthy when we kill something in that kind of setting and attempt to feed it to dogs, cats and humans. Its really very horrible and disgusting. Whats worse is we waste most of the food as stores are overstocked in order to give more viarety and boost sales. Its mass producerism and its disgusting how cooperate and wasteful the world has become. A healthy cow makes healthy meat, a sick, dying, chicken makes unhealthy meat.

Heey everyone, I'm planning on writing a paper on the ethics of meat eating. I have many books and articles which defend that it isn't morally permissible, but I have a hard time finding academic articles or books justifying that it is acceptable to eat meat. Can someone help me in suggesting some texts?

Thanks very much!

Well, that's mostly because there isn't much out there. There's not really anyone defending factory farming and the status quo.

Michael Pollins "omnivore's dilemma" is often cited. Steven Davis argues that we need to stick to large herbivores to reduce the overall number of killed animals, but his math doesn't work,out if you take a good look.

My personal favorites (in terms of amusement factor) are Kathryn George arguing that ethical vegetarianism is unfair to peoples who can't nutritionally or financially afford to be veg (she ignores ought implies can), and Donald Bruckner says vegetarianism is immoral because we should be eating roadkill (holy yuck).

The Animal Ethic Reader (Armstrong and Botzler) contains most of those articles.

Thank you very much, I have downloaded that ''Animal ethics reader''.

The arguments you mention seems to be quite bad. As someone which holds the position that being a vegetarian or a vegan is a moral obligation (I assumed it was your position, if I'm mistaken tell me), do you know of valuable/good arguments which defend that it is permissible to eat meat? By that I don't meat that factory farming is permissible, but that eating free range meat is, for instance.

do you know of valuable/good arguments which defend that it is permissible to eat meat? By that I don't meat that factory farming is permissible, but that eating free range meat is, for instance. — BerthMania

I have not checked any research on that, but it seems at least plausible that very limited consumption of meat might be morally permissible to make efficient use of existing grasslands and deal with overpopulations of some wild animals.

Yes, I would defend the position that eating meat is immoral. At least for people who have reasonable access to plant-based alternatives.

The best counter arguments to vegetarianism include that (like all morality) it's circumstantial. So if you're on a deserted island, you can kill a chicken. But of course, how often are you stranded on deserted islands?

Also, it may be permissible to raise animals humanely and eat them once they've died of natural causes. Except that animal agriculture is so resource intensive that it's bad for the environment, and so it falls apart there.

Finally, it may be permissible to eat things like oysters that do not possess brains or much of a central nervous system, so they can't experience pain and suffering the way other animals do. Again, you just have arguments about pollution and resources wasted in those cases.

Is eating meat morally permissible? Why or why not?

Do advances in slaughterhouses by individuals such as Temple Grandin make it less ethically problematic, if it even is problematic to begin with? — darthbarracuda

This is something I'm struggling with. It appears that I've developed a taste for meat. I was brought up on a non-vegetarian diet and continued to eat meat even after someone, with the noble intent of "converting" me, was kind enough to show how mercilessly animals are treated in farms and slaughterhouses.

These past few years I've been looking at meat on my plate differently. I like the taste of meat but I begin to imagine myself having my throat slit and then chopped up into little pieces that end up in a restaurant, then cooked and served to people who're joking and laughing as they eat my flesh and, lastly the utter humiliation of having to come out of somebody's ass as mush.

It's not just the fact that animals are killed. The utter absence of compassion of any kind. I mean non-vegetarisns are not even bad. They're worse.

I'm still non-veg which makes me worse than those I'm bitching about because at least I know and most non-vegetarians are totally unaware of what they're doing. When you wear a ring for long enough you don't feel it anymore.

This situation has to be changed. Yes, there are dietary requirements but look at exclusive carnivores like lions and tigers. They kill only when hungry. Surely being omnivorous our meat requirements are lesser than tigers and lions. The killing is disproportionate and exceeds daily dietary recommendations.

Some are of the view that lessening the pain of death a.k.a humane killing is a solution. Humane killing is presented as a response to those who want animal killings stopped. Does it make sense? The worth of a human being is not measured in terms of the degrees of suffering humans can endure. Life, in and of itself, has moral value. That's why murdering another human painlessly with, say, lethal injection won't earn you the judge's sympathy and lessen you sentence. Killing a person humanely still amounts to murder. How is it that the "humane" killing of animals is not murder?

This of course leads us to the issue of personhood. Animals are not persons and don't have rights. So we can kill them. Really? Do you really want to eat meat so badly that you want to continue cruelty and murder based on a technical point? It's like a person refusing to save a drowning child because, technically, that person isn't a trained lifeguard.

Non-vegetarianism is immoral. Stop eating meat. Please.

I like the taste of meat but I begin to imagine myself having my throat slit and then chopped up into little pieces that end up in a restaurant, then cooked and served to people who're joking and laughing as they eat my flesh and, lastly the utter humiliation of having to come out of somebody's ass as mush. — TheMadFool

I agree with the throat slit part, I would dislike the 48 seconds of bleeding out. But the rest I am fine with. If y'all want to chew on my fat once I am dead, enjoy. Ideally, I would be eaten by a lion or a killer whale or something cool, but eaten by people sounds better than eaten by worms and fungus.

It's not just the fact that animals are killed. The utter absence of compassion of any kind. — TheMadFool

This is true, but at least I am not way more compassionate with people. If someone wants to pay for me to live for the next 30 years, I will let them eat the 68 year old me (obviously if I am just trapped on a farm for 30 years in awful conditions, I change my mind).

I'm still non-veg which makes me worse than those I'm bitching about because at least I know and most non-vegetarians are totally unaware of what they're doing. When you wear a ring for long enough you don't feel it anymore. — TheMadFool

I think you are being hard on yourself. Don't we all know that plastic water bottles are terrible? But they are just so convenient :grimace: I think our aversion to inconvenience is surprisingly powerful. I guess that doesn't make it right.

Non-vegetarianism is immoral. Stop eating meat. Please. — TheMadFool

Have you read Bitter Crank's posts from 3 years ago (in this thread)? He makes some good points about heavily reducing our meat eating while ACTUALLY WORKING to ensure the living conditions are adequate. I get more upset with myself for not inspecting the living conditions of the food I eat, MORE than I worry about eating meat. But I can't disagree with the sentiment too much.

Yes, I would defend the position that eating meat is immoral. — Artemis

I don't think you are going to get strong opposition to this position, and I don't think there will ever be a solid argument for eating meat the way we do in modern society. I would just say, we all have levels of immoral...is it immoral like disrespecting your parents or immoral like genocide?

I currently view my over-use of plastics as a more significant moral harm than my meat eating...but I can admit that both are flaws I should work on (but I just don't, I have tried to analyze myself, is it a type of cognitive dissonance? it feels like my brain understands the problem but my emotions are still undecided - I think I have some sort of hang-up - if the rest of the world is not making sacrifices, why should I? I guess with that attitude we will all go down together :grimace:).

:rofl:

You have it all figured out. :smile:

Your rhetoric is better than mine.

I just want to ask you something if you don't mind?

Are you vegetarian or non-vegetarian?

In either case do you have any reasons apart from meat being tasty?

Thanks.

I just want to ask you something if you don't mind?

Are you vegetarian or non-vegetarian?

In either case do you have any reasons apart from meat being tasty? — TheMadFool

Still a meat eater. ALL of my favorite foods/meals include meat. So mostly just wallowing in my hypocrisy similar to you. But for some reason I don't feel the need to beat myself up over it...? But when I truly think about it, I don't have much of a defense. My main defense other than tasty probably amounts to "well it's not that bad, right?" Also, FOR ME (I get this won't be enough for many), if the animals lives are pleasant right up to the point of death (I think Temple Grandin was mentioned at the beginning of the thread), and the death is painless (and not seeing it coming would be an added bonus), then I don't see a moral harm as I would volunteer for that situation.

Still a meat eater. ALL of my favorite foods/meals include meat. So mostly just wallowing in my hypocrisy similar to you. But for some reason I don't feel the need to beat myself up over it...? But when I truly think about it, I don't have much of a defense. My main defense other than tasty probably amounts to "well it's not that bad, right?" Also, FOR ME (I get this won't be enough for many), if the animals lives are pleasant right up to the point of death (I think Temple Grandin was mentioned at the beginning of the thread), and the death is painless (and not seeing it coming would be an added bonus), then I don't see a moral harm as I would volunteer for that situation — ZhouBoTong

So one one pan of the scale is, to keep it simple, the death of an animal and on the other is "just" how meat titillates your tastebuds?

So a life gone just for a few seconds (how long do you chew?) of tastebud stimulation?

There is greatness I think if one can give even that fleeting second of pleasure to another being. Even if that means spending an entire life in a cage and then being killed.

Ok

Some are of the view that lessening the pain of death a.k.a humane killing is a solution. Humane killing is presented as a response to those who want animal killings stopped. Does it make sense? The worth of a human being is not measured in terms of the degrees of suffering humans can endure. Life, in and of itself, has moral value. That's why murdering another human painlessly with, say, lethal injection won't earn you the judge's sympathy and lessen you sentence. Killing a person humanely still amounts to murder. How is it that the "humane" killing of animals is not murder? — TheMadFool

So a life gone just for a few seconds (how long do you chew?) of tastebud stimulation? — TheMadFool

The options for livestock is life, reproduce, death or life, death and discontinued existence. The only moral issue is how the livestock are treated while they're alive. Vegetarians would be better off buying meat which was produced with higher ethical standards and supporting the companies that produce it. Life involves reproducing and death and natural death entails pain just as unnatural death does. Lament the living conditions of the animals yes, decrying their "murder" lacks understanding.

The options for livestock is life, reproduce, death or life, death and discontinued existence. The only moral issue is how the livestock are treated while they're alive. Vegetarians would be better off buying meat which was produced with higher ethical standards and supporting the companies that produce it. Life involves reproducing and death and natural death entails pain just as unnatural death does. Lament the living conditions of the animals yes, decrying their "murder" lacks understanding — Judaka

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. — Martin Neimoller

Not quite the quote I want but it'll suffice to get a part of what I want to say across.

The edited version is below:

First they came for the fishes, and I did not speak out—

     Because I was not a fish.

Then they came for the birds, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a bird.

Then they came for the chimpanzees, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a chimpanzee.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. — Martin Neimoller

Still not what I really want to say but it'll do.

Do you think there are aliens out there?

Who's eating wild birds and chimpanzees? Fish are a problem, I actually find the situation very sad and I don't really eat fish besides what's bred in farms. I used the term livestock many times in what you've quoted, the sustainability of livestock is not a problem, don't you worry, we won't have to resort to cannibalism anytime soon.

Is eating meat morally permissible? Why or why not? — darthbarracuda

You would first need an agreeable and documented starting point for morality. In the offshoots of second-temple judaism that support axiomatic theology, eating meat is kosher or halal, if the jurisprudential requirements and procedures of religious law have been satisfied, the details of which can be examined and assessed by sufficiently-trained religious scholars.

Other sentient beings don't belong to us to do with as we please, plain and simple. Just treating them as property and a resource to be used is a problem.

Vegetarians would be better off buying meat which was produced with higher ethical standards and supporting the companies that produce it. Life involves reproducing and death and natural death entails pain just as unnatural death does. Lament the living conditions of the animals yes, decrying their "murder" lacks understanding. — Judaka

The problem with this vein of argument is that it's currently impossible to produce nearly as much meat "ethically" as would be required to provide a significant part of the global population with meat. Buying meat produced with "higher ethical standards" is really only possible for a small group of wealthy people. Everyone else either has to be vegetarian or buy mass produced meat.

Though demands are increasing, I don't know if what you're saying is true or not and even if it were true, it's irrelevant. Unconcerned meat-eaters will buy whatever product, if there's no market for meat which is being handled ethically then it will be harder for businesses that choose to operate that way to justify doing so. Many cruelties that livestock suffer really come down to laziness and lack of care rather than a choice to favour productivity over animal care.

Each would-be vegetarian can analyse the situation for themselves and decide what their truth is but if they can't buy meat which is handled ethically then meat is just too expensive for them to buy. The would-be vegetarian would surely support laws which forced the meat industry to treat their animals with care. In which case, all meat would increase in price due to increases in costs. If in that situation, you can't afford meat then it's a luxury you can't afford but that doesn't make you a vegetarian.

Who's eating wild birds and chimpanzees? Fish are a problem, I actually find the situation very sad and I don't really eat fish besides what's bred in farms. I used the term livestock many times in what you've quoted, the sustainability of livestock is not a problem, don't you worry, we won't have to resort to cannibalism anytime soon. — Judaka

1. Meat is a necessary part of the human diet

Ok but we kill and consume more than we actually need

2. We can eat meat as long as the animals are reared in comfortable environments and then killed humanely

can I take a human child, raise it in a comfortable home and then kill him/her humanely?

No!

3. Animals are not persons

Ok. a brain damaged person can be eaten

Quality post... would vote post of the year.

Quality post... would vote post of the year. — Judaka

A little shuffling and we get:

would post vote of the year :rofl:

I currently view my over-use of plastics as a more significant moral harm than my meat eating...but I can admit that both are flaws I should work on (but I just don't, I have tried to analyze myself, is it a type of cognitive dissonance? it feels like my brain understands the problem but my emotions are still undecided - I think I have some sort of hang-up - if the rest of the world is not making sacrifices, why should I? I guess with that attitude we will all go down together :grimace:). — ZhouBoTong

If one immoral act justifies others, where and how do you draw the line?

Also, eating meat is worse than plastics, because it combines the environmental worries of the latter with the direct harms to individual creatures of the former.

I think the "everyone else is doing it, so why can't I?" argument is wrong on multiple accounts. What do you mean by "rest of the world"? Do us vegans and vegetarians not belong to the world? And do I really need to point out the old "if the rest of the world jumped off a bridge...." example? Furthermore, vegetarianism isn't so much a sacrifice as a reorientation. You learn to cook and eat different foods that are usually better for you and actually are much more flavorful.

Respect to the vegetarians but that lifestyle isn't for me.

Cheeseburgers, turkey, chicken, tuna, catfish, beef, tilapia, crab, sushi, pork, buffalo, alligator, rabbit, crayfish, lobster, froglegs, deer, STEAK, MMHMM IT'S GOOD.

If one immoral act justifies others, where and how do you draw the line? — Artemis

We are humans...we are ALL consistently committing immoral acts FROM SOME VIEWPOINT. Even my own personal morality is impossible to live up to. If morality is how we ought to behave then EVERY time I get upset, or am rude to another human, or squash an ant, I have behaved immorally. I do recognize these actions as needing improvement, but I don't consider myself an awful person despite acting 'immorally'. And what line? That seems too black and white for me.

It seems yourself and @TheMadFool view morality far more personally than I do. I also seem to be more of a consequentialist. If I am concerned about the morality of meat-eating, it is because I am concerned about the suffering of millions of animals. I am not concerned about my personal 'salvation' or 'enlightenment'. If I NEVER eat meat from now until my death, but the status quo of meat eating continues...then my choice to NOT eat meat was NEITHER good or bad as it accomplished nothing. It did not alleviate suffering. In that case it was only 'moral' in relations to my feelings of personal enlightenment.

It seems yourself and TheMadFool view morality far more personally than I do. I also seem to be more of a consequentialist. If I am concerned about the morality of meat-eating, it is because I am concerned about the suffering of millions of animals. I am not concerned about my personal 'salvation' or 'enlightenment'. — ZhouBoTong

Where do you get the idea that I am worried about "salvation" or "enlightenment"? I mean, the former is ridiculous, because I'm an atheist and I don't believe in salvation, and the latter is a term used in two ways: spiritual and intellectual. Again, as an atheist I reject spiritualism. So these words are just projection on your part.

I would argue that intellectual enlightenment is the path to vegetarianism, though, and not the end goal of it. I.e., when I am more aware of the moral implications of my actions, and realize what I can do to change, I follow through with correct action.

If you really are a consequentialist and only care about the suffering of animals, then why have all this self-justification about how we all are immoral sometimes? You have to draw the line somewhere, no matter how black and white you think that is, because otherwise you're on route to justifying the Holocaust and slavery.

I don't consider myself an awful person despite acting 'immorally' — ZhouBoTong

Again, nobody here said someone was an awful person for eating meat. Again, projection.