You cannot both claim it is a strawperson and that it is true... Either you admit it's ridiculous, or you bite the bullet.

If this discussion weren't about food you'd never suggest that stepping on a halm of grass was the same as kicking a dog-which is the logical conclusion of saying they are equivalent. — NKBJ

I didn't say they were exactly equivalent, but strictly speaking, it's true—if counter intuitive and maybe somewhat pedantic— that they're generally equivalent because such a tiny percentage of animals (far less than 1% as I said) are of any real interest in terms of suffering.

That's not inconsistent with recognizing that animals like dogs obviously do suffer in a way that insects, plants and so on don't. But the division isn't between animals and plants, it's between what is a tiny proportion of animals (those who are capable of suffering like dogs, pigs, cows etc.) and everything else.

I'll wait for chatterbears's answer about insects before I say more.

I think you know as well as I do that we're not talking about insects in this discussion. Even though the word "animal" technically includes insects, colloquially it's used to refer to fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals.

No, I don't know that, which is why I asked chatterbears the question. He mentioned a central nervous system, which insects have. So, I'd like to know specifically where he'd draw the line. Maybe you can just let him speak for himself.

Not sure i understand.. If you consume animals, aren't you therefore reducing the amount of plants consumed? Assuming plant's have the capacity for suffering.

For example, non-lactating cows eat 25-30lbs of hay a day.
70% of plant agriculture in the US is used to feed the animals we eat.

I'll wait for chatterbears's answer about insects before I say more. — Baden

You can do the research yourself, but Entomologists have stated they aren't convinced that insects feel pain. Having a central nervous system is only one part of it, but being able to perceive what your nervous system is telling you is another part. This is why Entomologists are more convinced that complex insects, such as Bees, are more likely to be of a higher consciousness and can feel pain.

But to answer your question, I also don't see a need to kill insects for food when it is not necessary. So the same argument applies to farm animals, which is, why would we kill them when it is not necessary? We have other plant-based foods that cause much less harm, and are healthier for you and the environment.

If you don't eat meat because you care less about plants than animals, you're just having an unethical opinion, nothing more. Your veganism may be all about making yourself feel better.

If you don't eat meat because you want your ecological footprint to be smaller, you have a good reason in my opinion, much respect !

If you're a vegan and a piece of meat is served to you by accident, and then you don't eat it and rather throw it in the garbage, you're the worst vegan in my opinion. When an animal died and gave his meat to you and you throw it away, sorry, 0 respect, 0 brains, 0 veganism.

If you don't eat meat because you are hurt by animals suffering, then eat biological meat in stead. These animals had a decent life. I also don't like eating meat when I know for sure the animals have suffered.

If you don't eat eggs or drink milk, you're just weird in my opinion. We give the animals food, shelter and safety, they give us eggs and milk, it's just a fair beneficial trade between two species. (keep in mind that this is only fair when the animals are treated with respect -> biological)

My parents only buy biological meat, milk and eggs. They want to be sure that the animals had a decent life before taking anything from them. In my opninion, this is something that deserves respect because they pay twice as much for the same amount of meat while they have a hard time paying their bills.

In my opinion, there is no need for scientific proof at all. It's wrong to just assume and act like plants are worth less than animals, simply because you don't give a shit about plants. This doesn't make you a better person. It makes only you feel better ! — Regi

It has nothing to do with me not giving a shit about plants. It has to do with the current scientific consensus, which is that plants are not sentient. And since they are not sentient, they cannot feel or perceive pain. They just react and adapt to their environment, similar to how bacteria or viruses do. A virus may change/adapt in ways that allow it to survive, but this does not mean it is conscious or capable of feeling pain. That's the entire point, is causing less harm/pain to animals that have the capacity to feel it.

If you don't eat meat because you care less about plants than animals, you're just having an unethical opinion, nothing more. Your veganism may be all about making yourself feel better. — Regi

I already cleared this up. It isn't about caring less about plants, as if their sentience is equal to plants. I care about causing the least amount of harm/pain to creatures that have the capacity to feel it. Plants cannot feel or experience pain.

If you don't eat meat because you want your ecological footprint to be smaller, you have a good reason in my opinion, much respect ! — Regi

This is part of the reason I do not eat meat, yes. Because the environmental damage is substantial, and not eating meat would help climate change improve.

If you're a vegan and a piece of meat is served to you by accident, and then you don't eat it and rather throw it in the garbage, you're the worst vegan in my opinion. When an animal died and gave his meat to you and you throw it away, sorry, 0 respect, 0 brains, 0 veganism. — Regi

If it started to become the societal standard, that cooking human body parts was part of the menu, and they accidentally served you a piece of human arm, would you eat it? Because according to you, that human died and gave their meat to you and you threw it away, sorry, 0 respect, 0 brains, 0 anti-cannibalism.

If you don't eat meat because you are hurt by animals suffering, then eat biological meat in stead. These animals had a decent life. I also don't like eating meat when I know for sure the animals have suffered. — Regi

What is biological meat? Are you talking about organic meat? Things like 'organic' or 'cage-free' or 'grass-fed' or 'free-range', mean absolutely NOTHING in regards to the living conditions of these animals. All these animals are still kept in horrible living conditions a majority of the time, and are still slaughtered unnecessarily.

If you don't eat eggs or drink milk, you're just weird in my opinion. We give the animals food, shelter and safety, they give us eggs and milk, it's just a fair beneficial trade between two species. — Regi

The dairy industry is probably the worst of the worst. Raping a female cow with bull sperm, stealing her baby on the day it is born to never be seen again, killing the male cows early for veal. And for the chickens, killing all the males shortly after birth, debeaking the females [which causes a lot of pain], shoving them in small areas that provide horrible living conditions.

Also, it's fair? To say you give them shelter and safety, is slightly ridiculous. You give them shelter and safety by torturing and slaughtering them? How would you like to be factory farmed and put in these living conditions, and then slaughtered at a young age so you cannot live out your natural life?

Factory farmed animals is not the meat I eat at home. We buy our products from a farm where you can walk around and see how they gain their products. The animals can walk freely in their meadow. In the winter they get inside and in the summer they can walk outside. They are provided with shelter for sun and rain. This goes for the milk giving cows and the cows grown for meat. But I fully agree that meat industries are mainly wrong. Cheap meat is gained by mistreating animals, so we shouldn't buy this meat.

You also point out that you don't want to be a part of harming animals by eating their meat (which I respect). But, what if an animal had a good life on a farm (WHICH IS POSSIBLE), and then they kill it without it causing stress or pain (WHICH IS ALSO POSSIBLE), then there is no harm, right? There is just the natural food chain 2.0, without any suffering.

And about cannibalism, the situation you describe says that cannibalism is socially accepted, that it is normal to eat other humans. Well this is fiction, this goes against the human nature, we are not created to eat each other. We are programmed to hunt other species. You have your point here but I think this cannot be used in animal ethics.

Are you saying you would rather throw your piece of meat away than eating it? You think this is better than eating it? Why?

You also point out that you don't want to be a part of harming animals by eating their meat (which I respect). But, what if an animal had a good life on a farm (WHICH IS POSSIBLE), and then they kill it without it causing stress or pain (WHICH IS ALSO POSSIBLE), then there is no harm, right? There is just the natural food chain 2.0, without any suffering. — Regi

This is better than regular factory farmed animals, but it still isn't good enough. Although the pain and suffering is important, so is the killing. Why would you feel the need to unnecessarily kill an animal? And by unnecessary, I am referring to plant-based products that we have as alternatives. Animal slaughter is not necessary when we have a better alternative. We are killing an animal against its own will to live. I'd assume you would not like it if someone killed you unnecessarily against your will, would you? Also, many people wouldn't accept the same type of unnecessary killing for their own pets, such as dogs or cats. So why is it okay for a pig to be slaughtered unnecessarily, but not a dog?

And about cannibalism, the situation you describe says that cannibalism is socially accepted, that it is normal to eat other humans. Well this is fiction, this goes against the human nature, we are not created to eat each other. We are programmed to hunt other species. — Regi

It doesn't matter if it is fiction, as I was using a hypothetical to expose the flaw in your reasoning. Also, factory farming goes against nature, so you are already going against nature in that sense. There are many things that occur in nature, not just within our species, but within others as well. Things like cannibalism and rape. Humans aren't the only species that are cannibalistic, but to say it isn't natural, would be an incorrect statement.

So again, if cannibalism was the societal norm (which in some parts of the world, it already is), would you be okay with getting accidentally fed human meat instead of meat from a cow? Would you throw it away instead of eating it?

When I hit a plant with a stick, I feel guilt. When I hit a pig with a stick, I feel the same guilt.

I find it wrong to assume that plants are a better alternative simply because you don't have a scientific explaination that proves plants are not thinking and can't feel pain. What would you do if there is proof?
Would you feel bad every time you eat?

So why is it okay for a pig to be slaughtered unnecessarily, but not a dog? — chatterbears

Chinese people eat dogs, and I don't hate them for this. I wouldn't eat one myself but it is not wrong to eat a dog.


Well, let's say they serve human everywere and you're not going to jail if you are a cannibal, maybe I'll eat it. If I could give your cooked arm to someone else, I would. But throwing it away would make me feel really bad.
People who throw meat away make me feel angry. It's such a high cost which is payed to please your taste, throwing it away is not going to make it moraly better.

There are many things that occur in nature, not just within our species, but within others as well. — chatterbears

Okay that's a good point.

So again, if cannibalism was the societal norm (which in some parts of the world, it already is), — chatterbears

First time I heard that. I thought there were only a few tribes who did this.

Well, where I stand is that we have an increasing duty of care with increasing sentience/ability to suffer, but it certainly wouldn't start with insects in which those characteristics are negligible at best. Pigs and cows though are certainly developed enough so that current treatment with regard to living conditions is probably often unethical. I don't believe killing and eating them is though as they are not agents and cannot ever become agents with similar responsibilities to us and so aren't entitled to similar rights to us. We owe them a comfortable life right up to and including the moment of death in my view but nothing more.

Having said that, looking at historical trends, I think it is reasonably likely that we are heading in the direction of veganism, or at least vegetarianism, in the long term, and should it develop into a highly practical alternative in terms of cost, nutrition, and taste, I would welcome that eventuality.

Pigs and cows though are certainly developed enough so that current treatment with regard to living conditions is probably often unethical. I don't believe killing and eating them is though as they are not agents — Baden

We shouldn't hurt them but we can kill them?

Yes.

That makes no sense. Killing is clearly one of the most obvious kinds of harm you can inflict on someone.

You can kill an animal painlessly and therefore not "hurt" it as in "cause it pain" which is what you asked me.

A painless death would be better than a painful one, sure. But that doesn't mean killing isn't causing harm. Regardless of pain level, it's still obviously one of the most harmful acts you can commit.

Shooting my dog is clearly not better or more acceptable than kicking her.

If you're going to keep confusing "hurt" and "harm" (in the context of what I said) even after I explain the difference, there's no point answering this.

I'll answer this part though:

Shooting my dog is clearly not better or more acceptable than kicking her. — NKBJ

It is under certain circumstances including if the dog is in chronic pain. Ask yourself this question, why is it OK to put down an animal (execute it) to stop it feeling pain or discomfort and not do that for a human?

The horse broke its leg and could never fully recover. It was put down for its own benefit. (OK)
The human broke her leg and could never fully recover. She was put down for her own benefit. (Not OK)

The horse broke its leg and could never fully recover. It was put down for its own benefit. (OK)
The human broke her leg and could never fully recover. She was put down for her own benefit. (Not OK) — Baden

That's a poor analogy in a couple of ways.

First of all, a horse's broken leg is the kind of thing that makes a horse's life miserable and often leads to their death anyway, whereas a human can live a happy and fulfilling life with a bum leg fairly easily.

But, more importantly, there's a huge difference in saving a horse from a life of misery for their own sake and killing them purely for the pleasure of eating them, i.e. our own and not in anyway the animal's sake.

OK, but you've seen the logic works differently when you're dealing with an agent. An agent has rights that imply they can't be manipulated for the benefit of another in ways a non-agent can. However any sentient being, agent or non-agent, should not have to suffer unnecessary physical pain considering that's intrinsically an undesirable. The result is a bit counter-intuitive, killing them is OK, hurting them is not, but that's not necessarily morally contradictory. By killing them you deny them further life (and life which you made possible in the circumstances you made it possible through manipulation of generations of their species) but you do not cause them pain, so it's the difference between denying the continuation of a positive (further life) and enforcing a negative (pain). And what I propose is ethical is to give an animal you breed for meat a better life than a similar wild version of the domestic species could expect (all things being equal) in terms of comfort, freedom from disease and parasites, protection from other animal predators, shelter etc. and then end that life without inflicting pain.

Jeff McMahan answers the question of whether giving animals a good life is sufficient to justify their killing.
He basically says that you can't argue that it's better for an animal to be caused to exist, even if that life is good. And also that if you did cause them to exist, you have obligations towards them not to harm them, including not following through with killing them.

https://philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Eating_Animals_the_Nice_Way.pdf

He makes the case more eloquently and thoroughly than I do. It's not a super long article, and it's pretty accessible language. If you read it, I'd be interested in what your thoughts are.

OK, I read a bit and he does present the argument I was supporting accurately. I'll get around to his counter when I get a chance.

Cool. Let me know :smile:

I don't believe killing and eating them is though as they are not agents and cannot ever become agents with similar responsibilities to us and so aren't entitled to similar rights to us. We owe them a comfortable life right up to and including the moment of death in my view but nothing more. — Baden

Would you say the same thing applies to a mentally disabled person who cannot ever become an agent, and we could argue has the same mental capacity as a cow?

When I hit a plant with a stick, I feel guilt. When I hit a pig with a stick, I feel the same guilt.

I find it wrong to assume that plants are a better alternative simply because you don't have a scientific explaination that proves plants are not thinking and can't feel pain. What would you do if there is proof?
Would you feel bad every time you eat? — Regi

If you hit a rock with a stick, do you also feel the same guilt? Because this is getting a little bit absurd, when you start comparing non-sentient life with sentient life. If there's proof that plants and/or rocks can feel pain, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. But for now, there's no evidence to suggest that, so it is irrelevant to talk about it. What is relevant, is talking about sentient life [such as farm animals] that CAN feel pain.

First time I heard that. I thought there were only a few tribes who did this. — Regi

Yes, there are a few tribes that still practice it today.

To the original question of the thread, Morally "wrong"? Yes, and no. You would expect that on a philosophy forum, right?

It is as wrong as it is to find it acceptable that thousands of children die every day of preventable diseases in Africa, and India, and Central America, not to mention other areas (using cheap/low tech chlorine to sterilize water, cheap nets to protect against mosquitoes, etc).

We evolved as omnivores, requiring meat as well as plant matter to survive, regardless of if t is humane or not. Therefore, "wrong" is a relative thing.

Morals may not have anything to do with it other than that it has been presented here.

Life101

We evolved as omnivores, requiring meat as well as plant matter to survive, regardless of if t is humane or not. Therefore, "wrong" is a relative thing. — Life101

We don't need meat to survive.

The Association of UK Dietitians - "British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can support healthy living in people of all ages"

US National Library of Medicine - "We humans do not need meat. In fact, we are healthier without it, or at least with less of it in our diets. The Adventist Health Studies provide solid evidence that vegan, vegetarian, and low-meat diets are associated with statistically significant increases in quality of life and modest increases in longevity. The world that we inhabit would also be healthier without the commercial meat industry. Factory farms are a waste of resources, environmentally damaging, and ethically indefensible. It is time to accept that a plant-predominant diet is best for us individually, as a race, and as a planet."

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1REgp2VreWfgHhatxycdk0GN6P9HyXID6UTzuNb4f7sY/edit?usp=sharing

Posted my google doc link to provide you with scientific journals that display the health and environmental benefits of a plant-based diet.

It is wrong because we are unnecessarily harming another sentient creature. There's necessary harm, such as self-defense, and unnecessary harm, such as slavery or factory farming. The health and environmental factors are well-established science, so that's not even debatable. Which is why I am attacking this issue from a philosophical perspective, not a scientific one.