Yes. I bite the bulllet; in other words, I acknowledge the inconsistencies of my actions.

I don't eat much meat, and what I do eat at home is free-range etc., so I suppose I reduce the suffering and damage caused, but I find the philosophical arguments against meat-eating to be compelling.

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).

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

For the record, I eat meat because I like the taste. I see "healthy" people get sick and die every day, while a lifetime smoker lives to 95. It's more than what you put into your body. It's also has to do with genetics. What may be unhealthy for one might not be for another (that is not to say that it would be healthy, just not unhealthy).

I do not believe in the existence of any objective ethical laws, so doing what I like is what is "good" and doing what I don't is "wrong". I'm a libertarian so I believe that we are all free to do as we please as long as we don't interfere with anyone else.

Like you said,

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. — chatterbears

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. The fact that any organism seeks pleasure over pain isn't good or bad. It's simply the result of how they evolved to survive and are the psychological triggers for certain physical behaviors.

1. Harm to the animals who are being tortured and slaughtered for food. — chatterbears

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

2. Harm to the environment. One of the leading causes of global warming (climate change) is our factory farms.

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

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.

I'm pretty sure the science is inconclusive. There are studies that show that eating meat provides benefits and there are studies that show that not eating meat provides benefits. It's likely that it's a trade-off between different benefits; eating meat benefits in some ways, not eating meat benefits in other ways.

But are you really going to argue that self-harm is immoral? Smoking, drinking, boxing, etc.? Except perhaps in extreme cases (suicide, mutilation, heavy drugs), I'd argue that there's nothing unethical about it (and even in extreme cases I don't think the issue is ethics).

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.

Does anyone here eat animals, while also adhering to the moral trifecta (Empathy, compassion and ethical consistency)? If so, I'd like to know how?

The majority of humanity eat meat, it's been that way since advent of man. Now you suggest that the normative notions of "Empathy, compassion and ethical consistency" ought to differentiate what's moral or immoral...that by these practices ordinary men are immoral because they fail your "trifecta", I think that is intellectual BS.

Are you suggesting that Holocaust's butchering of Jews and others are on the same moral plane as the butchering of animals to feed the world's population?

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).

So, they experience pain and suffering, but are not conscious of it to the level of an adult human being of sound mind, so they should be treated differently, and we should only be as empathic and compassionate as would be appropriate with this consideration in mind.

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. — chatterbears

I didn't say anything about 100%. I can argue that human brains are sufficiently similar to reasonably infer that our pains are sufficiently similar, whereas human and cow brains are insufficiently similar to reasonably infer that our pains are sufficiently similar. If a cow's pain isn't sufficiently similar to a human's pain then empathy is impossible.

And that's still assuming that there's a connection between brain structure and qualia, but that might not be the case. Perhaps it's impossible to empathise even with other people.

I think that is intellectual BS. — Cavacava

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

If I was being inconsistent within an ethical position, I would change my actions. I am still confused as to how people do not. — chatterbears

Don't be confused. Many individuals are ethically inconsistent, if they weren't there would be no need for ethics.

Re: my position; no doubt I could do more more moral good by giving up animal flesh altogether, but have I done some moral good by modifying my behaviour in order to reduce suffering and environmental damage? Must we be absolutist about this?

Also, would you eat roadkill?

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)?

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.

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?

...

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

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

My individual meat-eating decision will do nothing to increase or decrease the amount of harm done to animals or the environment and as such (if "causing harm" is the only measure) my individual meat-eating decision is not an ethical matter. At best you can argue that the collective meat-eating decisions of the wider society is an ethical matter, but I'm not responsible for that. So if anything there's group blame but not individual blame. You cannot attack a meat-eater personally for eating meat.

But your reasoning suggests that your argument isn't against eating meat but actually against meat production? None of your arguments work if we just consider the case of people eating roadkill.

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"?

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.

The point was there in the post. You just cherry-picked the post in making your reply. I said that the degree of consciousness should not be a measuring stick for determining what lives or dies.

"Tasting good" is subjective. Human meat could be designed to taste like anything. — Harry Hindu

No, that's not what you said to me. That might have been what you meant to suggest, but I wanted to be clear, which is why I asked you what your point was.

The degree of consciousness should be factored into consideration with regard to appropriate treatment, and that is my point.

And I don't really care about whacky hypotheticals. Why should I?

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.

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. — chatterbears

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

No, and that doesn't follow from what I said. Besides, it could be argued that decent treatment can take the form of turning off life support. Your side of the debate doesn't have authority over what does and does not constitute decency. I approve of decent living standards for livestock, which, funnily enough, are different to what's considered to be decent living standards for humans, because, funnily enough, there are important differences between livestock and humans.

Funnily enough, I'm not as empathic or compassionate towards a chicken kept in a small cage as I am towards a human kept in a small cage.

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.

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.

Funnily enough, I'm not as empathic or compassionate towards a chicken kept in a small cage as I am towards a human kept in a small cage. — Sapientia

But despite which one you are more empathetic towards, do you think both do not deserve to be in that cage? And do you think both deserve the right to live a life free from pain and suffering?

You don't recognise a will to live, you project it. And they have no rights, except those assigned to them.

I value human life over animal life

I too value human life over animal life, however unlike your position I don't believe animals have rights simpliciter, rather their rights are given to them by us.

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?

The aesthetic pleasure of eating a 2 inch well cooked and spiced steak, goes beyond logic and reason. Human activities of this sort and many other sorts can't be circumscribed by logic and reason.

You don't recognise a will to live, you project it. And they have no rights, except those assigned to them. — Sapientia

If I hold a pigs head over a flame, will the pig not squirm and do everything in its power to get away from the flame? Meaning, it has a will to live and will avoid pain if possible. And if I observe the pig's actions, that is me recognizing the pig's will to live. And their will to live is part of universal animal rights. We call it human rights, but I extend it to all animals.

A system of morality does not require being based on whether the objects of moral concern feel pain or not. If that were the case, we needn't have any moral concern for those human beings who are congenitally insensitive to pain, but presumablly we should. One can base a morality instead on the idea of rationality, and that to be a moral creature or the object of moral reasoning is to be a creature capable of reason. Admittedly, that would take some more argument, but it leaves the whole pleasure/pain issue to one side.

I too value human life over animal life, however unlike your position I don't believe animals have rights simpliciter, rather their rights are given to them by us. — Cavacava

It is part of basic universal rights. The right to live free from pain and suffering. We call this universal human rights, which are granted at birth. The same rights should be granted to animals, and you'd have to present an argument for why that shouldn't be the case. Because anything that can feel pain and suffering and has a will to live, should be granted basic rights. Such as, the right to not be killed.

The aesthetic pleasure of eating a 2 inch well cooked and spiced steak, goes beyon logic and reason. Human activities of this sort and many other sorts can't be circumscribed by logic and reason. — Cavacava

To state that your position is free from logic and reason, just puts you at odds with ethical consistency. Jeffrey Dahmer could say, "The pleasure of eating 2 inch well cooked and spiced human flesh, goes beyond logic and reason." - Yet we would push him for ethical consistency in the same way I am pushing you. If you are basing your actions on a justification such as "It tastes good" or "I like it", you can justify almost any action with that criteria. Which makes your moral foundation vastly inferior to many others.

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. — chatterbears

Me, as an individual, owning a slave directly causes harm to that slave. But me, as an individual, eating meat doesn't directly cause an animal or the environment to be harmed. This is why it's a false analogy.

If you want to argue that me eating meat is wrong because it causes harm then you need to show that me eating meat causes harm. And to show that me eating meat causes harm you need to show that some particular harm is avoided if I don't eat meat. This is where your argument fails. No harm is avoided if I stop eating meat.

Whereas harm is avoided if I don't own you as a slave.