Eating meat: Where do you stand?

[brian]

Regarding ecology, as I understand it, it is far more efficient on a per acre basis for me to eat plants than it is for me to feed those plants to a cow until he grows up and I kill the cow and eat him.  So all your arguments about ecology and deforestation are actually arguments for vegetarianism.

And starvation is caused by a variety of factors.  One of them may be that there are more people in certain areas than those areas can naturally support, another is the promotion of cash crops in a capitalist system, and the biofuel industry isn't helping (people in developing countries have seen food prices skyrocket, and as an example recently Swaziland has taken resources away from food farming to go into biofuel farming even though there are a lot of hungry people there).  Neither is the attitude that we as people living in an industrialized country can be as fat and ignorant and waste as many resources as we want.

[Steve]

Regarding ecology, as I understand it, it is far more efficient on a per acre basis for me to eat plants than it is for me to feed those plants to a cow until he grows up and I kill the cow and eat him.  So all your arguments about ecology and deforestation are actually arguments for vegetarianism.

A cow can eat grass from fallow fields, humans require manually tilled fields and rich soil to plant our vegetables. Cows can be fed by high test genetically modified grain, that provides a lot more per acre than our "organically" grown products.

To feed a human requires a lot more effort along the way then feeding a cow.  I am not saying to only eat meat, I am saying that it doesn't make sense for the collective 5 or so billion human beings to only eat vegetables.

[january]

I think a large issue here is the ascribing of animals with human emotions and sentiment.  People do it all the time.  Our brains are uniquely wired to feel the things we do and they are substantially more sophisticated then that of a chicken.  Chickens don’t cry, chickens don’t feel love, chickens don’t undergo deep examinations of conscience when they eat bugs, worms, or each other for that matter.  They react purely on instinct.  

Vegetarians can be zealots just like religious fanatics.  People these days say it is wrong to force Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. values on other people.  Vegetarians saying that eating meat is morally wrong is in the exact same camp as Christians saying fucking before marriage is wrong. 

I think another problem with this issue is that people don’t think logistically about the economics of switching to a completely agrarian style of diet and living. 

1.)   Farms require much more space than slaughter houses.
2.)   Not every tract of land on the face of the earth is arable

 

So I will ad another proviso to my earlier challenge.  Give me the peer reviewed study on chicken emotions, and a PROVEN ecological plan for feeding everyone on earth on a solely agrarian basis, and I will be a vegetarian.  Until then the tenets of vegetarianism are as much a fairy story to me as the ten commandments. 

I think you've strawman-ed this argument on several fronts.

Emotions are not why vegetarians think cruelty to animals is wrong. Sentience is the reason. Feelings of pain. Chickens feel pain. This is fact if anything in science can be considered fact. How do we know? They have nervous systems, they cringe and scream when they're hurt...they actively seek to avoid pain. The same way as we do. Now why is their pain inconsequential, when our pain tends to matter, morally speaking? There is no reason to assume animals ought to suffer, or be left out of the moral community, simply because they are a of a different species. This is like saying that disabled people can be experimented on, or tortured, because they don't feel equivalent emotions...Or that women can be treated like chattel...or that black people can be enslaved. I think that is very analogous.

I also question the comparison of vegetarians to fanatical religious followers? Our arguments are based on moral reasoning. Not something handed down by a supposed god figure. I have to wonder based on what moral reasoning someone argues in favour of needless torture and suffering? If you think it doesn't matter that certain creatures suffer for your better enjoyment of life, I think you need to back that claim up...I'm not convinced by the claim that animals simply cannot feel pain. I never said they can feel love or envy, but they surely can feel suffering.

And the other strawman here...Where are we arguing in favour of an agrarian society? If you abolished meat consumption, you wouldn't need more land. You would in fact need signifcantly less. And we're not saying "let the chickens roam free!". We are saying "maybe it's better if these creatures were not brought into existence only to face horrible, painful lives".

[Steve]

I also question the comparison of vegetarians to fanatical religious followers? Our arguments are based on moral reasoning. Not something handed down by a supposed god figure. I have to wonder based on what moral reasoning someone argues in favour of needless torture and suffering? If you think it doesn't matter that certain creatures suffer for your better enjoyment of life, I think you need to back that claim up...I'm not convinced by the claim that animals simply cannot feel pain. I never said they can feel love or envy, but they surely can feel suffering.

So according to the "morality" you speak of I am an immoral person because I eat meat?  Because something "feels" wrong for you does that necessarily bind me by the same moral standard you hold yourself to?  If eating other animals is murder, my cat is worse than Hitler.  He is an intelligent, sentient being, but his body is designed to process meat.  Other food would not be too good for him.    This puts me in another moral crisis.  Do I continue to feed him meat, or try and switch him to a less healthy vegetarian diet.  Does it compound my sin if I feed him meat? 

I am not trying to rag on your morality Ms. January, I have no right to do that, nor would I ever try and force someone to ascribe to my own personal beliefs, I am just asking how far does it extend?  Our clothes are made from animal components like wool, what about dairy?  I am told about the horrors of dairy farms.  What about life saving medications that are tested on animals?  Is it morally reprehensible for a woman whose Rh blood type is different from her second baby's(a condition called Haemolytic disease of the newborn, which is fatal to the baby) to accept a does of Rh (D) immunoglobulin ( a drug which cures this problem) knowing that a group of Rhesus monkeys had to die for that drug to be tested?

[january]

I didn't say morally reprehensible. I just said I think animals deserve consideration. Obviously they don't get the same rights that we do, since they haven't got the same capacities (and thus not the same duties). Maybe they don't even have a right to life (certainly they don't in all cases). But I do think they have the right not to be tortured?

I'm not condemning people for eating meat, I'm just suggesting that we question the way we treat our livestock. I think there is room for shades of grey. And if people torture animals knowingly...or condone that behaviour...then yes, I think those are bad actions for the utilitarian reasons I've described.

Anyway. For the wool and dairy, yes vegans believe that we should cut that all out too. They are very consistent minded. Cats need meat to live. They cannot live without it. We can. And we have the rational faculties to question what we're doing...FWIW, I don't think there is anything wrong with hunting down a deer, and feeding your family. I think it's wrong to raise animals on a mass distribution type of level, pump them full of hormones, and have them live horrible, misery-infused lives. That is unnecessary.

I mean, I think if everyone cut down on how much meat/ leather products we consume, the problem could be greatly helped along. It's that we take so much and consume so much that things have gotten kind of nasty.

[Gerry]

I think a large issue here is the ascribing of animals with human emotions and sentiment

I think a large issue is that you think humans are somehow special.

If you can provide me 1 peer reviewed scientific study that says chickens have highly developed emotions and beweep their imprisoned state

Is it only the eating of chickens that you are advocating?
I don't know enough about chickens to respond with authority, but I am very confident that they can feel pain and can think and reason.

If you bring pigs and cows into the conversation, then I can say you are flat-out WRONG.

Not every tract of land on the face of the earth is arable

No, but there is plenty of arable land being used to raise animals which could just as easily be used to grow vegetation.

So this begs the question, where do we get more arable land to devote to agriculture?  The Brazilians have the answer, bulldozing large acres of rainforest.  So I can enjoy my whole grain bread

The main crop from the farms in Brazil are Soybeans. Used in animal feed. McDonald's has been critisized for buying the animal feed to feed the cows used to produce their burgers from Brazilian farms.

What about areas with the highest incidence of starvation?  Why don’t they just plant some crops in sub-Saharan Africa?  They can’t.  The land is not arable.  Even if we gut the Canadian Prairies, the American Mid West, and the slopes of China, I don’t think there is enough land to provide the current human population with enough food.  If simply farming was the solution, why is there starvation in the world at all?

I think you're deviating from the topic at hand here, and that we're talking about using land which is perfectly good for growing vegetables for feeding animals instead. You can see it all around southern manitoba.
Here's a picture I took myself of an example:
http://Pictures.GerrysCuppaTea.org/Albums/FailedBikeTrip2007/pictures/picture-14.jpg

As for Starvation in the world, we are ALREADY producing enough food to feed everyone on the planet. The reason people are starving is capitalism and greed. (or if you want a less loaded word "economy") Food is going to waste because others can't afford to pay for it.
http://ask.metafilter.com/66167/Feed-the-world

So I will ad another proviso to my earlier challenge.  Give me the peer reviewed study on chicken emotions, and a PROVEN ecological plan for feeding everyone on earth on a solely agrarian basis, and I will be a vegetarian.  Until then the tenets of vegetarianism are as much a fairy story to me as the ten commandments. 

As January mentioned in her post, emotions have nothing to do with it. It's sentience, the ability to feel pain, etc.
And as I mentioned above, humans are not any more special than other animals. We each evolved to fit our niche on this planet. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that chickens do not feel pain.
And point falls flat if you are advocating eating other animals like pigs, cows, rabbits, etc.

[Steve]

I think a large issue here is the ascribing of animals with human emotions and sentiment

I think a large issue is that you think humans are somehow special.

If humans are no different from other animals and not "somehow special" and we are all on a level playing field, why are you not "morally" outraged when an animal eats another animal?  You can't say that we are no different from animals and then not hold them to the same standard.  It is one sentient being killing another, regardless of species.  Yes, aniamls do have a choice.  If humans can turn around and say "fuck you" to evolutionary biology and stop eating meat, then so can wolves.  Using their intelligence as a crutch is a hypocrisy.  Bringing up factory farming here in rebuttal is also a moot point as killing is killing regardless of the form it takes.  Do you think aniamls suffer any less when they have their throats ripped out by a predator then killed by a quick electric current in a slaughterhouse (process for chickens)?

Living things eat other living things.  Prove to me that plants don't have feelings, or that their lives don't have meaning.  Can you tell me with unequivocal scientific certainty that plants do not suffer?  Can't?  Well maybe you should think about that the next time you eat a salad and smile a warm self righteous smile because nothing "suffered" to feed you (including the animals killed in the process of harvesting the vegetables like rabbits and moles).  Because regardless of form or species a life is ending to feed you.

EDIT: Here is an excellent article on this argument:

 http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/00509.htm

[january]

I think a large issue here is the ascribing of animals with human emotions and sentiment

I think a large issue is that you think humans are somehow special.

  Bringing up factory farming here in rebuttal is also a moot point as killing is killing regardless of the form it takes.  Do you think aniamls suffer any less when they have their throats ripped out by a predator then killed by a quick electric current in a slaughterhouse (process for chickens)?

Living things eat other living things.  Prove to me that plants don't have feelings, or that their lives don't have meaning.  Can you tell me with unequivocal scientific certainty that plants do not suffer?  Can't? 

I argued before that I don't think animals attain the same rights of personhood as humans do, because they have different capacities. I do think we're special because of our special capacities...we have the ability to go beyond evolutionary instinct. Also, like cats, wolves need meat. We don't. Really. Wolves would die without meat. We would not.

But in any case, I think you're saying that the moral community ought to only include those who have the ability to engage in moral reasoning. This is problematic, since it makes way for infanticide, abuse of the mentally disabled, etc. The only difference between a mentally incompetent human and an animal, morally speaking, would be the human DNA. This is what I believe we're claiming is not special.

Really though, I don't think it would be wrong to just kill our prey. It's how they live. Factory farming is not a moot point, because it's not the *killing*. And it's not as easy as a shot to the head. They live in filth, they're frequently beaten, they often get crushed in transport, in the case of poultry, they have their limbs cut off and live in cages. It's that until they die, these factory farmed livestock live horrible, miserable lives. That is empirical fact. I invite you to work in slaughter house for six weeks, and reconsider if you don't believe me. Really, it's bad, and I don't think sentient beings should suffer like that. It's like if your neighbour had a dog that he smacked in the ribs with a baseball bat, forced to live in freezing conditions, never let leave the filthy dog kennel...wouldn't this be wrong? Is it different for cows and chickens? I don't think it ought to be.

So, personally, I don't think we need meat at all. But I think we absolutely shouldn't torture animals. Hunting, as far as I'm considered, is a lot less wrong than factory farming (which is in fact a product of greed.) Even if I were convinced that we needed meat to live, we certainly don't need as much meat as we tend to consume.

[Steve]

But in any case, I think you're saying that the moral community ought to only include those who have the ability to engage in moral reasoning. This is problematic, since it makes way for infanticide, abuse of the mentally disabled, etc. The only difference between a mentally incompetent human and an animal, morally speaking, would be the human DNA. This is what I believe we're claiming is not special.

Really though, I don't think it would be wrong to just kill our prey. It's how they live. Factory farming is not a moot point, because it's not the *killing*. And it's not as easy as a shot to the head. They live in filth, they're frequently beaten, they often get crushed in transport, in the case of poultry, they have their limbs cut off and live in cages. It's that until they die, these factory farmed livestock live horrible, miserable lives. That is empirical fact. I invite you to work in slaughter house for six weeks, and reconsider if you don't believe me. Really, it's bad, and I don't think sentient beings should suffer like that. It's like if your neighbour had a dog that he smacked in the ribs with a baseball bat, forced to live in freezing conditions, never let leave the filthy dog kennel...wouldn't this be wrong? Is it different for cows and chickens? I don't think it ought to be.

So, personally, I don't think we need meat at all. But I think we absolutely shouldn't torture animals. Hunting, as far as I'm considered, is a lot less wrong than factory farming (which is in fact a product of greed.) Even if I were convinced that we needed meat to live, we certainly don't need as much meat as we tend to consume.

I argue that plants should be given the same rights as any other living organism in my previous post.  The problem with both arguments for and against any form of livestock maintenance both plant or animal, is that we have to argue on a slippery slope.  For example, if you are pro-choice, then at what point does killing a fetus go from abortion to murder (not to say that I believe abortion is murder, just an example)?  The same kind of argument can be applied to animals.

Have you ever visited a slaughterhouse?  Not every slaughterhouse in the world is a PETA Meet Your Meat horror show.  There are laws that govern how these institutions are run, and given the excellent amount of concern people show towards animals these days, these laws are strictly enforced.  I've been on several poultry farms here in Manitoba, and I have never seen chickens with their beaks chopped off or being beaten by the staff. 

Are there slaughterhouses where that kind of abuse happens?  Sure there are?  Do I agree with it?  Absolutely not.  I don't think the entire organization of factory farming can or should be condemned over the actions of a few bad apples.  Some Catholic priests raped kids, does that mean every priest is a rapist? 

[Gerry]

I think a large issue here is the ascribing of animals with human emotions and sentiment

I think a large issue is that you think humans are somehow special.

If humans are no different from other animals and not "somehow special" and we are all on a level playing field, why are you not "morally" outraged when an animal eats another animal?

I think you were replying to my response out of context. I was replying to your point about animals having emotions and sentience. With respect to those two attributes, humans are not special.

When it comes to logic, reason, agriculture, etc. Humans are definitely special.
But I'd say it's mainly a quantitative difference, not qualitative difference.

[Gerry]

So according to the "morality" you speak of I am an immoral person because I eat meat?  Because something "feels" wrong for you does that necessarily bind me by the same moral standard you hold yourself to?  If eating other animals is murder, my cat is worse than Hitler.  He is an intelligent, sentient being, but his body is designed to process meat.  Other food would not be too good for him.    This puts me in another moral crisis.  Do I continue to feed him meat, or try and switch him to a less healthy vegetarian diet.  Does it compound my sin if I feed him meat?

I think somehow our arguments have gone way beyond how they began.
I've re-read all the messages in this thread and it looks to me like NO ONE who has posted here is a vegetarian.
Most people have been advocating better treatment and cutting down on meat intake.
My original post suggested cutting meat production in half and advocated better treatment. That would hardly equate me with a vegetarian.

My main problem is the inhumane treatment the animals experience during their lives. I think the ethical problem some people have would become much less of an issue if the animals were treated with respect during their lives.
The factory-raised animals are so common place that you have to go out of your way to ensure the animals you eat didn't live in inhumane conditions. This is a result of greed more than anything.

I don't think I've stated anything new here, just trying to get us to some common ground instead of going back and forth until we end up defending a position we never advocated in the first place.

Just curious... Why do you keep bringing up chickens? Do you eat any other kind of meat?