To some philosophy is a precursor to scientific investigation. In philosophy they came to understand and define truth. A point others seem stuck on, but for some they are able to move beyond that aspect which creates a natural path to science. Science is modern philosophy and philosophy is ancient science. Some do not see a division but see them as a single continuation. — Jeremiah

Only if one assumes only scientific truths are true. To me a philosopher is someone who seeks the truth, the means and method are of less importance to the definition than the quest for truth itself. I don't exclude the possibility that valuable truths can be found in art or religion, hence I don't exclude the fields of art and religion from being able to have valuable philosophers within them.

I agree that a certain understanding of science is required, especially mathematics, but I'd like to point out that there is a mathematical compenent to music as well.

At the moment it would be premature, perhaps a shared reward with the leaders of china, north korea and south korea after reunification of north and south korea.

Preventing suffering is one thing. Causing suffering is another. Eating meat CAUSES suffering. Not sure how you don't see the difference here? — chatterbears

Nonsense, in case of scavenging I can eat meat without causing any additional suffering, the animal is dead already.

I am not suggesting we prevent all suffering from every animal in existence. I am suggesting that we prevent any suffering that we are causing them directly, if reasonably possible. — chatterbears

Then the discussion should focus on what one considers to be reasonable possible instead. Again my position is that as long as humans can do it in a way it causes equal or less amount of suffering to the animal than it would suffer otherwise in nature without being farmed, it's ethical enough.

And to say that even the farm animal suffers because they eventually die, is like saying us humans suffer, because we eventually all die. That's not even remotely comparable to what factory farms are doing, which is direct harm, torture and abrupt death caused by the humans. — chatterbears

Life is suffering, ethics are about what people do in order to increase or decrease suffering. I made it clear already that I consider the abusive treatment disproportionally increasing the amount of suffering to the animals in said factories for monetairy gain to be unethical.

Is it impractical to obtain plant-based products where you live? Because as i have stated before, every single person I have talked to, owns a computer. They also live near a grocery store, which sells fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and grains. It is as simple as going down a different isle, nothing more. And yes, I acknowledge that some places have it harder to achieve a plant-based diet, but everyone I have talked to does not. So to refer to other places is a deflection, as I want to know why YOU have not changed your diet.

The main vitamin that Vegans need to worry about is B12. Which can be found in fortified foods, or supplementation. And yes, I am aware that we cannot know 100% of where our food/vitamins are coming from or how they are being created. But the point is, do the best that you can with as much research as you can, and make an informed decision. If you find out later than the supplement you have been taking for B12 was actually created from substances of animal origin, look for another supplement.

We can't even get past the idea that eating meat is immoral and worse for the environment, let alone which supplements are better than others. And as far as practicality, is the vegetable isle too far from the bacon? Practicality isn't a valid justification for people who live near a grocery store. Which i can reasonably assume, all of us in this thread do. — chatterbears

So you are not actually interested in the philosopical ethical discussion as much as you are interested in my personal choises in the matter. Well sorry to dissappoint you, but I'm not gonna let you know. Especially not since you make unwarrented assumptions about me clearly demonstrated by your statement " I want to know why YOU have not changed your diet."

How do you know I didn't change my diet?, and why is it even relevant to the philosophical discussion about the ethics of eating animals?
Wether I choose to do the ethical thing or not is totally irrelevant to the discussion about what is ethical.
I'm here for the discussion about what is ethical, not for polarizing the community in this forum by pointing out the ones behaving according to my (possibly flawed) ethics and the ones who don't.

The discussion wasn't about eating meat, the discussion was about the ethics of growing animals for food. Single celled sessile animals can be eaten, but are not meat, since meat is the muscle part of an animal, not all animals have specialized muscle cells. You only find those in multicelled animals. you keep conflating the three questions. So I will sum them up again and accompany them with my answers to them:

1 Is it ethical to farm animals for consumption?
Obviously yes, since it's possible to do so without causing any additional suffering, especially in the case of farming animals without a nervous system.

2 Wich animals can ethically be farmed for consumption?
All animals as long as it is done without causing additional suffering to the animal.

3 Is the treatment of animals we currently farm for consumption ethical?
Commercially no, we still have much to improve before all commercially farmed animals no longer endure additional suffering that could have been prevented.
Yes in some cases where people have their own farm and treat their animals well as a part of the family untill they start suffering too much from old age.

Ah now I see where your confusion comes from:

I am referring to people who own farm animals and allow them to live without harm or death.

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but even those animals suffer, eventually they all die. Allowing animals to live without harm or death is not within the capabilities of humans. All humans can do is reduce the suffering. They can't prevent all suffering, nor death.

I don't really see an ethical difference between killing plants for food and killing animals for food — Tomseltje


Have you done any research on the harm caused from factory farming?

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

Click the environmental tab.

It might be possible that humans could survive perfectly on a plant only diet, but it will be hard to convince me there is any practicality to it, seeing that even the most strict vegans eventually take supplements of animal origin. — Tomseltje


This is false. There are Vegan supplements, as well as fortified foods. Some of which are GMO.

only quoting half my statement on the subject seems disingenious. I don't like being misrepresented. My statement was:
"I don't really see an ethical difference between killing plants for food and killing animals for food, other than that for some/most animals, humans are able to increase their suffering by doing so."

I don't really see why me doing research on the harm caused from factory farming is of any importance for the topic. The question wasn't wether animals are suffering from factory farming, the question was wether it was ethical to grow them for consumption without excluding the possiblity that this can be done without causing any (additional) suffering to the animal.

In my first post I stated:
"Seems to me that the question wether it is ethical to farm animals for consumption gets conflated with the question wich animals are ethical to farm for consumption and the question wether our treatment of the animals we currently farm for consumption is ethical."

Seeing your question about factory farming (adressing the 3th question) as a response to half a statement I made (adressing the 1th question) , I conclude this conflation still applies. Please start treating the different questions seperately.

My objection was to the practicality, I didn't claim there weren't 100% vegan alternatives, I claimed that (for most I've seen) it was inpractical to obtain them. Perhaps they are easier to aquire where you live.
Did you consider people living in countries that banned GMO? Are you aware that some supplements sold as vegan still contain substances of animal origin without this being mentioned on the product?

Correction here. The proper term would be sentient, not conscious. So can you point to a non-sentient animal that we would raise for consumption? But even if you could, I'd say it would only be ethical if it was necessary. Which, raising any animals for food (in this current day) is NOT necessary. We have plenty of plant-based alternatives that can sustain our survival perfectly.

Concious or sentient, I came to understood from other posts that it boiled down to wether or not the animal in question has a nervous system so it could feel pain. In wich case I was thinking of sessile and/or single celled animal life as examples of animal life without a nervous system.

I don't really see an ethical difference between killing plants for food and killing animals for food, other than that for some/most animals, humans are able to increase their suffering by doing so.
I don't really see much of an ethical problem as long as the animal isn't suffering any more than it would if it were born, living and dieng in free nature without ever being near a human being.
Hence I consider certain dog breeds more of an ethical problem than growing animals for food while treating them well,

It might be possible that humans could survive perfectly on a plant only diet, but it will be hard to convince me there is any practicality to it, seeing that even the most strict vegans eventually take supplements of animal origin.

Seems to me that the question wether it is ethical to farm animals for consumption gets conflated with the question wich animals are ethical to farm for consumption and the question wether our treatment of the animals we currently farm for consumption is ethical.
To me those are three parts of the discussion that should be treated seperately. Though of course if ones position is that it is unethical to farm any animal for consuption under any condition, then the two other questions don't arise, but I doubt that is the case with chatterbears, since he doesn't seem to object to the ethics of growing unconcious animals for consumption.