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 it's the latter you seek, then I think that you carry a burden of justification. — Sapientia
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).If I am inconsistent in something that is as easily changeable as a diet, I would change it. — 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.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
1. Harm to the animals who are being tortured and slaughtered for food. — chatterbears
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.
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.I don't eat much meat, and what I do eat at home is free-range etc — jastopher
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?
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 animals are tortured and slaughtered for food because I eat meat? That doesn't seem to follow. — Michael
Same thing here. Supply and demand. Factory farms wouldn't exist if people stopped eating meat.So factory farms exist and harm the environment because I eat meat? That also doesn't seem to follow. — 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. — chatterbears
I think that is intellectual BS. — Cavacava
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
but are not conscious of it to the level of an adult human being of sound mind — Sapientia
Must we be absolutist about this? — jastopher
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
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.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
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
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. — chatterbears
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
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
It's not the same, because owning a slave is itself a wrong, whereas eating meat itself isn't a wrong. — Michael
Your side of the debate doesn't have authority over what does and does not constitute decency. — Sapientia
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
I value human life over animal life
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?
You don't recognise a will to live, you project it. And they have no rights, except those assigned to them. — Sapientia
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
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
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
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.