Do you eat meat?

[Alchemist007]

My friend is from Ghana, I went to this party of his and the ONLY food there was meat. He knows my situation but forgot, ended up ordering a pizza for me XD.

me: "so...is there anything without meat here?"
his dad: *facepalm* "I'm so sorry..." *walks over to friend* "how could you forget!"
friend:


Ironically out of all the parties of his I've been to all these years, this is the only time this ever happened.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

^You speak my heart right there! Honestly, I really feel the same about broccoli -- so many people don't know how to cook them. Broccoli, properly cooked, is great. Broccoli boiled unceremoniously until bitter makes me feel sick.

It's absolutely vegetable abuse. *crosses arms*

Originally Posted by Irenicus

American cooking in general is pretty horrible against vegetables. So unimaginative, so bland. No wonder everybody's unhealthy around here. "Ethnic" cooking, as the myriad of human experiences other than Aunt Jemima's-style cooking is known (we shan't consider fast "food"), tend to be so much more creative in their uses of vegetables. People speak so much about health issues in the USA, yet I think the problem is with a very simple thing: our food. What we eat, how we cook it, etc. Solve it, and we're halfway there.

There's some good food in America, but you are right. Particularly Asian food uses vegetables in much more interesting ways. Even though I like to eat meat, Asian food is one of my favorite types of food and I particularly love many meatless dishes.

From what I've seen as a cook, Americans generally consider vegetables to be a side dish, for health reasons--a "necessary evil" amidst the meat, the potatoes, the bread and pasta and the sweets.

I don't think this is true, personally. I have many times just eaten vegetables with nothing else for a meal (though if I go for too many weeks without eating any meat, I do tend to feel rather sick).

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Oh, but I'm getting off-topic here. To pretend I was actually kind of on topic, I'd say that being a strict vegetarian is, to me as an eater at least, pretty awkwardly limiting. Oyster sauce -- which I assume is off-limits to veggies who don't go for seafood as well -- is wonderful with vegetables in Chinese cuisine.

Well, if they're vegetarians they won't eat oyster sauce since it has shellfish in it. I know a few folks who actually just dislike the taste of beef, pork and poultry, and really only eat vegetables, fruits, beans, grains, dairy products and the occasional piece of fish or shellfish.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Of course, vegetarians might not see it the same way. As I would never feel left out of life because I've never eaten a monkey's penis, so I assume they would feel the same about the cuisine I love so much.

Well it's not so much a case of not knowing what you're missing. Most vegetarians weren't vegetarians to start with, especially if they have changed their diet based on moral concerns. For people like this, there's usually a point in time when they realize that their own personal morality will not allow them to eat animal flesh and feel okay about it.

[Langknow]

Love eating meat, wouldn't want it any other way .

I'm not particular about the meat too, as long as it's not humans I'm ok with it.

Of course , it has to taste good.

And you wouldn't believe how many meats taste like "chicken"...

[einhorn303]

I don't eat meat, because I'm a utilitarian. It's just part of my personal ethical view.

I also try to eat vegan most of the time, but I'm not strict about it. Like, I have some eggs or cheese once a week or so. Just a little bit.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Alchemist007

That's not true, I understand quite well. You like shit so you eat shit

Guess you misunderstood me

... I never pet or play with shit

[Alchemist007]

Sorry but I refer to everything in existence as shit, didn't mean to offend your tastes. Though in retrospect I personally do think it's no better than eating it :P

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Okay I never said they had a pleasent life. There is certainly room for improvement.

I think "unpleasant" would be an understatement for this kind of life, so yes, a lot of room for improvement.

And I thought thats what they are naturally doing all the day... standing around, eating, digesting, sleeping (basically a mix of that in a loose order).

I think even a sloth would despair if it was kept in a small box for weeks and months. ;P

Cows might spend a lot of time digesting, but the food intake itself keeps them busy.
Not to mention that cows are social animals and need to be able to interact with others in order to be content, especially calves.

Does this apply to all cattle (even BIO)?

Obviously, some cattle gets to see the sun - actually, many grown cows (but not pigs or chickens) are at least brought outside shortly before they are turned to meat since it produces a better taste; however, until then they are usually kept under not much better conditions than the veals. Then they often get shipped off over large distances, to finally share a single acre with about 900 other cows. Dehorning, branding and castration without anaesthetic are also usually thrown into the mix.
I'm not sure what goes for bio meat. I guess, however, that those animals are considerably better off than those in factory farming, especially when we're not talking about "beef" cows, who at least get to see the sun for a few months in their lives even in factory farming. The transport to the slaughterhouse and the slaughtering itself might be by far the worst for "bio" cattle, but I'd have to look for deatailed information on this some time.

Says who? But I must admit I don't regularly go on farms and check up on how the animals are treated there.

Say documentations, books, people who went to actually visist these places and common sense. If you look at what profit hungry humans are allowed to do to those animals, it's not surprising that they go crazy in there.

Thats another ethical dilemma. But what is your point, are you trying to prove my point of view? ^^' I mean I should do that not you... that is unfair.

You said not being able to comprehend the situation means you usally suffer less. If that was true, it would not be as much of an ethical dilemma to me - if forced to torture either a small child or a healthy adult, I would always pick the one that suffers less. However, I don't believe the child would suffer less, and only because of this I would find myself faced with an ethical dilemma so bad I might as well throw a coin.

I think you can't, since you have forgotten the suffering of an hour ago in the cannot comprehend case, while it multiplies with the feeling of the suffering of an hour ago in the case of actual comprehension. Its even worse, since you can then make a prediction of how this is going to go on.

Or you can tell yourself not to give up hope and console yourself.
If you constantly kick a calf (or a very young child), it will not just forget about it. It might not be able to comprehend why you are doing it or what it implies, but it will suffer, and the suffering will show in its behaviour, even if you stop kicking it suddenly.
I don't know if you've ever seen a traumatized dog, but yes, non-animals can definitely suffer severe psychological damage. It would be hard to prove that they are harmed less than "rational animals" in a similar situation.

No, since I need to give you at least the ghost of a chance.

Keep telling yourself that! ;P

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Say documentations, books, people who went to actually visist these places and common sense. If you look at what profit hungry humans are allowed to do to those animals, it's not surprising that they go crazy in there.

Oh - okay, okay I get it. Those unbiased people that either make money with their stories or generally do not eat meat. Actually I cannot find eveidence for the opposit, Well, I just have to believe you here.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

You said not being able to comprehend the situation means you usally suffer less. If that was true, it would not be as much of an ethical dilemma to me - if forced to torture either a small child or a healthy adult, I would always pick the one that suffers less. However, I don't believe the child would suffer less, and only because of this I would find myself faced with an ethical dilemma so bad I might as well throw a coin.

This cute little thing - really? If you were asked to either be tortured yourself or your child (< 3 years) was tortured... what would you do? I knew what I would do, since this is not just a matter of who suffers less. The problem is, the child will grow up and suffer even more. Its not like there is a predictable end (death) to the suffering like in the animals case. Now you could say, and what if the suffering was only for a shorter term until death? I'ld answer, that I cannot say what I would do. Possibly I gave my live for his/hers. :/

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Or you can tell yourself not to give up hope and console yourself.

I don't think that will work.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

If you constantly kick a calf (or a very young child), it will not just forget about it. It might not be able to comprehend why you are doing it or what it implies, but it will suffer, and the suffering will show in its behaviour, even if you stop kicking it suddenly.

But there surely is a difference in quality/strength. And no matter what you say, I acknowledge that they both suffer and both will have a trauma. But its felt worse for the individuum with higher mental capabilities.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

I don't know if you've ever seen a traumatized dog, but yes, non-animals can definitely suffer severe psychological damage. It would be hard to prove that they are harmed less than "rational animals" in a similar situation.

But they do not suffer as much from it.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Keep telling yourself that! ;P

Hmpf. I know that you know, that I am just teasing you a little.

[prometheus126]

Of course. Actually, an ungoldy assortment of various meats I've eaten which when I tell people about it they become as pale as a ghost

[Hijiroku]

i love my meat as long as its not chicken medium rare please

[chikorita157]

I do eat meat since I'm a very picky eater unfortunately when it comes to vegetables and I can never become a vegetarian because of my eating habits.

But then again, the ethical reasons of eating meat can also be applied to vegetables too. Vegetables have feelings too and are living things (although they don't have a nervous system like animals do)... If you don't water them or put them in light, they were welt... and if you consume them, you are basically doing the same as meat... just saying...

[AG3]

I'm a meat eater, and don't see any moral issues with it. I do think that we have an obligation to ensure that the animals we raise for the purpose of making food are treated as humanely as possible though, which sadly doesn't happen anywhere near as much as it should.

[Nogitsune]

@chikorita157:
Ah, but there is a morally relevant difference between a plant and a human, while there is none between an animal possessing a central nervous system and a human. That's my whole point.
Also, it is far from proven that plants have actual emotions or experience any kind of pain. They just show some reactions that would allow you to draw that conclusion, but it's purely interpretation. Since they can't flee anyway, it would be pointless for them to be capable of feeling excessive pain or anxiety.

Originally Posted by Jinto

Oh - okay, okay I get it. Those unbiased people that either make money with their stories or generally do not eat meat. Actually I cannot find eveidence for the opposit, Well, I just have to believe you here.

If there was evidence for the opposite, I'm sure the meat industry would spread it around. ;P
There is a lot of video material that can serve as proof, as well as the fact that some of the people who write about these things have a reputation to lose.
Actually, the in my opinion most convincing philosopher who published a book about the rights of animals admits that he still very much misses meat - I don't think he just gave up on it for the heck of it. Also, he writes about how he fed his "pet" (it's really the wrong word in this case) fish instead of meat once he came to that particular moral conclusion, exactly because of the life chickens or pigs lead before they are killed.

This cute little thing - really? If you were asked to either be tortured yourself or your child (< 3 years) was tortured... what would you do?

If it was my child, it wouldn't be just about "justice" anymore, but also about "loyalty". Same if it was my dog.

I knew what I would do, since this is not just a matter of who suffers less. The problem is, the child will grow up and suffer even more. Its not like there is a predictable end (death) to the suffering like in the animals case. Now you could say, and what if the suffering was only for a shorter term until death? I'ld answer, that I cannot say what I would do. Possibly I gave my live for his/hers. :/

If you sacrifice yourself, that's your choice - there are selfless people like that. However, that is not my point. I'm talking about the life of two people you have never met - a very young child and a healthy adult - about whose lives you decide in their stead.
All I am trying to show is that there is no morally relevant difference between an animal and a human. Saying it's better to torture an animal than a human because it can not comprehend the situation fully doesn't work, since amongst humans, there are infants and small children, as well as people with brain conditions that have the same effect. Saying it's better because the animal dies sooner also doesn't work, since there are human who only have 1, 10 or 20 years left.

I don't think that will work.

Ah, I'm sure there are people for whom it has worked.
But just like you can't prove that not being rational reduces suffering, I can't prove that being rational does. It's pure speculation, and in the end, it doesn't really matter, since there would still be no morally relevant difference between animals and humans - only between animals and most humans.

But there surely is a difference in quality/strength. And no matter what you say, I acknowledge that they both suffer and both will have a trauma. But its felt worse for the individuum with higher mental capabilities.

That might be true if both manage to escape the torture, since I could imagine a dog gets over a trauma more easily than a human does. But we are talking about factory farming - the suffering of those animals is never-ending, until the moment of their death.
A healthy human adult would be more bored in confinement, which can indeed easily cause additional suffering, but that's about all that is certain.

But they do not suffer as much from it.

That might actually depend on the individual, except if the dog truly gets over it more quickly. However, while I think that is indeed likely, I'm not sure about it.

Hmpf. I know that you know, that I am just teasing you a little.

They all say that... and then they steal my favourite sock and give it to strange people with green hats and pink ears!
I know you are part of The Conspiracy!
;P

[Kafriel]

I bumped into a moral subject of eating anything alive while reading Magic the gathering:Onslaught, in which case the Creator was all alone in the desert, and made a turtle with tender flesh, for the purpose of eating it-the creature itself wanted to be eaten. Still, he felt remorse, and gave the turtle razor-sharp teeth, claws and a strong shell, with which it claimed his left pinky before being brutally eaten without a second thought. While I probably won't be following the thread too much, feel free to discuss, hope I offered food for thought~

[Dragonbow0]

I know this seems like a bad joke, but if animals stopped being so damn tasty and full of protein I wouldn't eat them. They don't have a choice in the matter though, and my vegetables don't seem to be as enjoyable to eat.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

I bumped into a moral subject of eating anything alive while reading Magic the gathering:Onslaught, in which case the Creator was all alone in the desert, and made a turtle with tender flesh, for the purpose of eating it-the creature itself wanted to be eaten. Still, he felt remorse, and gave the turtle razor-sharp teeth, claws and a strong shell, with which it claimed his left pinky before being brutally eaten without a second thought. While I probably won't be following the thread too much, feel free to discuss, hope I offered food for thought~

So basically, this Creator graciously gave the turtle a chance to at least fight back before killing it? Feels like giving a person a knife before getting ready to shoot at them to me.
Then again, if the turtle wanted to be eaten, there's not much of a moral issue in killing it to me, since obviously, it has different interests than me. Maybe creating it itself could be seen as wrong... and I suppose what this Creator did afterwards was giving it some kind of "dignity" then.
Anyway, causing something unnecessary suffering is always wrong to me, even if it has claws or a kitchen knife to defend itself.

And yes, meat is tasty. But I think it's a given that if being moral was always easy, the world would be a much better place.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

If there was evidence for the opposite, I'm sure the meat industry would spread it around. ;P

I don't think they need to, they have a strong lobby as it is. There is no need to uh wake sleeping problems.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

There is a lot of video material that can serve as proof, as well as the fact that some of the people who write about these things have a reputation to lose.

And I could claim the material does not represent the average farm.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Actually, the in my opinion most convincing philosopher who published a book about the rights of animals admits that he still very much misses meat - I don't think he just gave up on it for the heck of it. Also, he writes about how he fed his "pet" (it's really the wrong word in this case) fish instead of meat once he came to that particular moral conclusion, exactly because of the life chickens or pigs lead before they are killed.

Well, that makes him a nice person, and if he thinks fish farming is a lesser problem, so be it. I am just indifferent to this, because I cannot tell moral and emotional decission apart in this case.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

If it was my child, it wouldn't be just about "justice" anymore, but also about "loyalty". Same if it was my dog.

Okay, wrong example.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

If you sacrifice yourself, that's your choice - there are selfless people like that. However, that is not my point. I'm talking about the life of two people you have never met - a very young child and a healthy adult - about whose lives you decide in their stead.

Hm, lets assume there was no way I could prevent making a decission on that.
I would ask the adult who should survive. If the adult person wants to be the surviver I take child, otherwise the adult. (Sounds cruel, but this way the one with the higher potential to be an ethically sound human survives). But I don't understand why this is important. We were talking about animals that suffer, not humans that have to die.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

All I am trying to show is that there is no morally relevant difference between an animal and a human.

Maybe not for you, but for me. I would not give my life for just any animal. It would have to be of equivalent potential. Otherwise its just a waste of my own life. And currently I only know of one such specie - humans.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Saying it's better to torture an animal than a human because it can not comprehend the situation fully doesn't work, since amongst humans, there are infants and small children, as well as people with brain conditions that have the same effect.

Ah wait, stop... slow down.

I said there is an ethical dilemma when there is moderate suffering for the animal versus a healthy nutrition for humans. I don't support the extreme suffering of animals. Actually I would prefer if they did not suffer at all. But that is what makes it an ethical dilemma.
What you try to say is, that I would value small children and people with certain brain conditions over animals. But I never said that. What I said is that a normal human would suffer more under the same treatment. And this leads fellow humans to assume they would know how the animals must feel. That however, doesn't justify unnecessary cruelty against animals.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Saying it's better because the animal dies sooner also doesn't work, since there are human who only have 1, 10 or 20 years left.

Point is, I didn't say it. I simply stated that the longer a being lives under cruelty the more will it damage the psyche of a being. And that this applies stronger for beings with higher mental capabilities.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Ah, I'm sure there are people for whom it has worked.
But just like you can't prove that not being rational reduces suffering, I can't prove that being rational does.

Which deadlocks this argumentation tremendously. ^^'

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

It's pure speculation, and in the end, it doesn't really matter, since there would still be no morally relevant difference between animals and humans - only between animals and most humans.

Relevancy is a subjective matter, hence the ethical dilemma.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

A healthy human adult would be more bored in confinement, which can indeed easily cause additional suffering, but that's about all that is certain.

Nah, I'ld say a human is capable to find out whats the purpose of his suffering. You simply can't compare it (However, I know that doesn't stop you short from doing it ).

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

That might actually depend on the individual, except if the dog truly gets over it more quickly. However, while I think that is indeed likely, I'm not sure about it.

I never heard of factory farming docs dogs. Now I don't know whats going on in China but maybe we could just reduce the set of animals to those I'ld actually eat?

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

They all say that... and then they steal my favourite sock and give it to strange people with green hats and pink ears!
I know you are part of The Conspiracy!
;P

Okay, I admit it. But what will you do? I have almost all your amunition now... err socks.

edit:

Factory farming docs would be quiet absurd.

[synaesthetic]

From what's been posted so far I'm seeing that the difference between those who eat meat and those who voluntarily eschew meat for moral reasons seem to have a single difference. Those who eat meat see a moral difference between humans and those who eschew meat for moral reasons consider humans to be morally equivalent to any other animal.

I'm enlightened to finally understand, but now I am somewhat miffed to know that vegetarians consider me (and all other humans) to be no more important than a slug or a rat. D:

[HayashiTakara]

The only vegetables I eat are rice, bread and pasta... well I guess that classifies more as grains. And I'll have an occasional lettace. There are probably other vegetables, but its typically soaked in meat juices that you can't even tell

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Jinto

I don't think they need to, they have a strong lobby as it is. There is no need to uh wake sleeping problems.

But if other people are doing that for them, they should want to prove them wrong. I'm not saying they would turn it into a campaign, but there are ways to let those know who are already interested.
Anyway, just looking at the regulations for factory farming should be proof enough.

And I could claim the material does not represent the average farm.

Then you are disregarding countless sources that say otherwise, as well as the official regulations by the government that aren't nearly as animal friendly as they could be.
If you want to do that, you have to show me at least some evidence so that I can take such a standpoint seriously.

Well, that makes him a nice person, and if he thinks fish farming is a lesser problem, so be it. I am just indifferent to this, because I cannot tell moral and emotional decission apart in this case.

A morally relevant difference would be that cattle usually gets tortured all its life before being slaughtered, while fish caught in the wild doesn't.

Hm, lets assume there was no way I could prevent making a decission on that.
I would ask the adult who should survive. If the adult person wants to be the surviver I take child, otherwise the adult. (Sounds cruel, but this way the one with the higher potential to be an ethically sound human survives). But I don't understand why this is important. We were talking about animals that suffer, not humans that have to die.

We are talking about the relevance of mental capabilities.
Higher potential? That sounds like Nietzsche, who believed the life of Goethe, for example, woudl be worth more than that of an average human, since Goethe had a lot of potential and made use of it.
Personally, I'm glad this view isn't very popular in our society.
However, in this case, I don't even see how the child has less "potential". Maybe you could explain that?

Maybe not for you, but for me. I would not give my life for just any animal. It would have to be of equivalent potential. Otherwise its just a waste of my own life. And currently I only know of one such specie - humans.

Can't reply to this until you explain what you mean by "potential".

Ah wait, stop... slow down.

I said there is an ethical dilemma when there is moderate suffering for the animal versus a healthy nutrition for humans. I don't support the extreme suffering of animals. Actually I would prefer if they did not suffer at all. But that is what makes it an ethical dilemma.

But as I already pointed out, evidence suggests that most humans can live just fine without meat. They can always try, and if they notice their health getting worse, they could always go back to eating meat.

What you try to say is, that I would value small children and people with certain brain conditions over animals. But I never said that. What I said is that a normal human would suffer more under the same treatment. And this leads fellow humans to assume they would know how the animals must feel. That however, doesn't justify unnecessary cruelty against animals.

Point taken.

Point is, I didn't say it. I simply stated that the longer a being lives under cruelty the more will it damage the psyche of a being. And that this applies stronger for beings with higher mental capabilities.

Even if was was proven, the question would still be how relevant this is to the meat eating issue.

Which deadlocks this argumentation tremendously. ^^'

Not really, since it wouldn't be a morally relevant difference between animals and all humans, either way.

Relevancy is a subjective matter, hence the ethical dilemma.

Actually, in ethics, a "morally relevant difference" means something that rationally allows treating one being differently than another one. It's not all that subjective, since it has to make sense from at least one point of view and allow consistency.
For example, "women are different because they are women!" doesn't work, since it's not their fault that they were born as women, nor is there anything that makes them less capable of suffering.
If you have a morally relevant difference between an animal and all humans, I'd be very interested, since philosopher have a very hard time coming up with one that can be defended.

Nah, I'ld say a human is capable to find out whats the purpose of his suffering. You simply can't compare it (However, I know that doesn't stop you short from doing it ).

But maybe if you tell a human they die for the sake of others, the human will feel better about it - there would indeed be a point to their suffering, which might make it less severe.

I never heard of factory farming docs dogs. Now I don't know whats going on in China but maybe we could just reduce the set of animals to those I'ld actually eat?

Pigs are no less intellegent than dogs.

Okay, I admit it. But what will you do? I have almost all your amunition now... err socks.

There's always the sunglasses...

edit:

Factory farming docs would be quiet absurd.

Would it?


Edit:
@synaesthetic:
Slugs have a central nervous system?
And this is not a rhetoric question. I never thought so, but I'm not an expert on slugs. xD
However, obviously, there is a difference between you and a rat, or a rat and a dog. It's just that there is none I would consider morally relevant, since a rat can suffer just like a human being can.

Oh, and vegetarians can have quite different views. What most of them have in common, though, is that they dislike causing suffering to other living beings, even if they aren't human, and even if they'd gain tasty (or not so tasty) meat from it.