[QUOTE=LCBADs;34629067]funny[/QUOTE]
Sorry but cannibalism isn't a laughing matter. I don't think you'd be laughing when someone's sitting there and munching on your arm bro.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34635958]How do vegetarians feel about artificially grown meat?
What arguments against meat will be around once a method to produce them without needing the animal is introduced?[/QUOTE]
Probably depends on whether the vegetarian doesn't eat meat for moral or health reasons
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34617259]Allow me to dissect this argument. Are you saying that what happens in nature, with beasts, is totally morally permissible, and we should apply the same moral standards to humans?
"Animals eat meat and it is essential to their survival, so it cannot be unethical. Therefore, it is permissible for us to eat meat." is that your argument?
because by the same logic I could just say
"Animals rape one another and it is essential to their survival (survival of inferior beast's genes), so it cannot be unethical. Therefore, it is permissible for us to rape one another."
Basically, if you appeal to "nature" or the actions of beasts in ethical debate, you're using a [I]very[/I] weak argument.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be attacking people's moral arguments a lot. Have you yet logically shown how avoidable suffering is morally wrong?
[QUOTE=sgman91;34659687]You seem to be attacking people's moral arguments a lot. Have you yet logically shown how avoidable suffering is morally wrong?[/QUOTE]
take it as axiomatic that suffering is a bad thing
[editline]12th February 2012[/editline]
on account of being human and all
Wait seriously, someone explain to me why such a high percentage of slaughter cattle in the USA are lot-fed instead of free roaming grazers??
Almost every bit of cattle meat produced in Australia is grass fed. Corn/lot fed cows produce an inferior quality of meat, have shitty lives and have a host of health problems. I could understand if it was cheaper, but AFAIK, it's not?
Also, slightly off-topic, but the fear of growth hormone use in cattle meat is ridiculous. Antibiotic use is questionable for sure, but growth hormone used is typically an anabolic steroid called Trenbolone, which drastically improves the feed efficiency and growth rate. It's seriously the most cost effective method of improving cattle growth and quality. The fear of side effects from this is ridiculous, because not only isn't the steroid orally bioavailable, but the amounts present in the meat are trace, at best.
I don't mind vegetarians, I really couldn't care less if someone chooses to eat a diet consisting of meat or not. What I don't like is when people attempt to 'convert' me over to their diet. I would assume that vegetarians would feel the same about people trying to get them to eat meat.
[QUOTE=Contag;34660995]take it as axiomatic that suffering is a bad thing
[editline]12th February 2012[/editline]
on account of being human and all[/QUOTE]
Is stubbing a toe morally wrong? That is a form of suffering.
Or how about punishing a misbehaving child? That causes measurable suffering upon the child yet isn't morally abhorrent.
I would argue that suffering in itself isn't enough to conclude anything about morality. The purpose behind the suffering is what makes it good or bad. So my question for you would be what is the morally incorrect purpose behind the suffering of animals that are to be eaten, and why is that purpose wrong.
Vegetarian here, just checking in.
The food is tastier I find, and it's cheaper; meat is really expensive.
[QUOTE=sgman91;34661302]Is stubbing a toe morally wrong? That is a form of suffering.[/quote]
Yes, I would contend that going about stubbing the toes of others is morally wrong.
Were you trying to be witty?
[quote]
Or how about punishing a misbehaving child? That causes measurable suffering upon the child yet isn't morally abhorrent.[/quote]
Isn't it? So if I punished a child for misbehaving by lashing them, that wouldn't be considered morally abhorrent. It is dependent on the type of suffering caused, and the end result for whatever is suffering.
The type of suffering that livestock experience in industrialized environs can be taken as morally wrong in most of the west. I regard suffering as something that should be avoided, regardless of species.
[QUOTE=Contag;34661652]
The type of suffering that livestock experience in industrialized environs can be taken as morally wrong in most of the west. I regard suffering as something that should be avoided, regardless of species.[/QUOTE]
This is entirely subjective to the conditions the animal lives in then I guess.
Open range cattle live in good conditions and when they are slaughtered, as far as I understand it's efficiently painless and quick. I question some of the pro-vegetarianism propaganda videos of slaughterhouse abuse, because torturing an animal to death, regardless of your moral stance, is a waste of time and very inefficient for a business.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;34662034]This is entirely subjective to the conditions the animal lives in then I guess.
Open range cattle live in good conditions and when they are slaughtered, as far as I understand it's efficiently painless and quick. I question some of the pro-vegetarianism propaganda videos of slaughterhouse abuse, because torturing an animal to death, regardless of your moral stance, is a waste of time and very inefficient for a business.[/QUOTE]
In Australia the Department of Primary Industries has made some major headway with regard to cattle. As a rule of thumb, anything involving economically sustainable poultry farming is going to be somewhat horrific.
Normal cattle have their brains smashed by a bolt, which renders them unconscious and is virtually painless. It's done this way as the brain stem is still intact so the heart and other functions continue as normal, which makes killing and processing the cow easier.
With regard to ritual slaughter, things get a bit more complex (and ritual slaughter is actually considered a UN protected right). Most Islamic imams consider the meat halal if the animal is stunned by a non-destructive concussive force, rendering it unconscious for a few minutes while it is killed. It's regarded as okay by most muslims because the cow would regain consciousness (if it's throat wasn't slit) and be pretty much fine.
Kosher is a bit different, whereby the animal must be conscious:
[quote]Among other features, shechita slaughter severs the jugular vein, carotid artery, esophagus and trachea in a single continuous cutting movement with an unserrated, sharp knife. Failure of any of these criteria renders the meat of the animal unsuitable.[/quote]
Unfortunately for cattle, they have a blood supply vessel in the back of their neck, so they don't die as quick as otherwise, and it's definitely painful.
All the above methods would probably look like slaughterhouse abuse in a video, because they're all quite violent and bloody. The more barbaric ones would probably be Kosher ritual slaughtering.
I'm vegetarian due to the pure fact that I don't believe that slaughtering animals is wrong. What about my boyfriend? He's a meat eater, but have I ever tried to stop him from being a carnivore? No. Stop generalising.
[QUOTE=Irockz;34663754]I'm vegetarian due to the pure fact that I don't believe that slaughtering animals is wrong. What about my boyfriend? He's a meat eater, but have I ever tried to stop him from being a carnivore? No. Stop generalising.[/QUOTE]
well, its almost impossible not to depend from animals in our daily life, i got that after i became a vegarian, now im just vegetarian because its cheaper and healthier
[QUOTE=autodesknoob;34663819]well, its almost impossible not to depend from animals in our daily life, i got that after i became a vegarian, now im just vegetarian because its cheaper and healthier[/QUOTE]
I'm okay with wool. I'm okay with dairy. But murdering the creature is unecessary. That's what I don't like. Sure, if you like it go ahead, but don't try and get me to eat meat.
Humans are born omnivores. We are suppose to eat both meat and plants. Vegetarians are depriving themselves of important source of nutrients vital to human growth. Meat is what makes us strong but Fruits and vegetables is what make us smart.
If they wish to eat only plants, then it's fine. As you guys say, so long as they don't shove their beliefs onto others, it's fine.
[QUOTE=BCell;34664902]Humans are born omnivores. We are suppose to eat both meat and plants. Vegetarians are depriving themselves of important source of nutrients vital to human growth. Meat is what makes us strong but Fruits and vegetables is what make us smart.
If they wish to eat only plants, then it's fine. As you guys say, so long as they don't shove their beliefs onto others, it's fine.[/QUOTE]
those nutrients are proteins. Proteins are also in dairy and nuts.
[QUOTE=Irockz;34664929]those nutrients are proteins. Proteins are also in dairy and nuts.[/QUOTE]
There's also lots of protein in legumes. Most vegetarians that I know like to focus on black beans and kidney beans for protein. I prefer beans over meat even though I eat both lol
[QUOTE=DJK;34636630]A few years ago i was at an outdoor centre with my school, and my groups instructor told me that he placed an animal's life over a humans. When asked for an example he replied that should there be a baby and a squirrel on a road when he was driving, and he had to run over one, it would be the baby.
I'm fine with vegetarians and vegans beliefs but I think this is just too far.
Also, he still ate meat.[/QUOTE]
He's a moron and you should have kindly told him to shove a retractable baton up his ass.
[QUOTE=DJK;34636630]A few years ago i was at an outdoor centre with my school, and my groups instructor told me that he placed an animal's life over a humans. When asked for an example he replied that should there be a baby and a squirrel on a road when he was driving, and he had to run over one, it would be the baby.
[/QUOTE]
The baby is the smart option, the bones are softer and there's barely any hair to get smeared on your car.
[QUOTE=Contag;34661652]Yes, I would contend that going about stubbing the toes of others is morally wrong.
Were you trying to be witty?[/QUOTE]
The purpose of this first example is to show that suffering in itself has no moral standing because the act of accidental suffering (i.e. stubbing your own toe) is morally neutral.
[QUOTE=Contag;34661652]Isn't it? So if I punished a child for misbehaving by lashing them, that wouldn't be considered morally abhorrent. It is dependent on the type of suffering caused, and the end result for whatever is suffering.[/QUOTE]
Woah, way to look at the extreme. I'm talking about a completely normal and humane punishment (i.e. sending a very young child to their room). This still causes obvious suffering.
Would you say this parent has dome something immoral?
[QUOTE=Contag;34661652]The type of suffering that livestock experience in industrialized environs can be taken as morally wrong in most of the west. I regard suffering as something that should be avoided, regardless of species.[/QUOTE]
The second sentence is just a personal opinion. So I'm just going to ignore it.
So it's morally wrong because most of the west takes it as such? Isn't that just the same kind of moral relativity that you were arguing against earlier?
[QUOTE=sgman91;34665310]The purpose of this first example is to show that suffering in itself has no moral standing because the act of accidental suffering (i.e. stubbing your own toe) is morally neutral.
[/quote]
How is animal consumption an act of accidental suffering?
[quote]
Woah, way to look at the extreme. I'm talking about a completely normal and humane punishment (i.e. sending a very young child to their room). This still causes obvious suffering.[/quote]
We are talking about an extreme kind of suffering. Killing and consuming something is rather different to sending a child to their room to modify their behavior so they live a better life.
[quote]The second sentence is just a personal opinion. So I'm just going to ignore it.
So it's morally wrong because most of the west takes it as such? Isn't that just the same kind of moral relativity that you were arguing against earlier?[/QUOTE]
Wait, do you believe in some form of universalizable morality?
At what point was I arguing against moral relativity?
What then, are your criteria for an immoral act?
[QUOTE=Contag;34665473]How is animal consumption an act of accidental suffering?[/QUOTE]
He was using the axiom of suffering being bad as a reason to say that avoidable suffering is morally wrong.
I was trying to show that suffering in itself is morally neutral. This means that his axiom isn't enough to reach his conclusion. Something can be "bad" and still be morally neutral. (i.e. natural disasters)
[QUOTE=Contag;34665473]We are talking about an extreme kind of suffering. Killing and consuming something is rather different to sending a child to their room to modify their behavior so they live a better life.[/QUOTE]
It is still suffering, just to a different degree (punishment of a child is also very avoidable). My point is that causing suffering is not always morally wrong, but that the situation and purpose behind the suffering is what makes it either morally positive or negative.
This means an argument needs to be made for WHY the suffering of animals is morally negative which to my knowledge hasn't been made yet.
[QUOTE=Contag;34665473]Wait, do you believe in some form of universalizable morality?
At what point was I arguing against moral relativity?[/QUOTE]
Earlier in the thread someone made the argument that since morality is relative it is pointless to argue the morality of the suffering of the animals used for food. This was then shot down by one of you.
But never mind this part of it... it doesn't really matter anyway since if we were using a relative morality this entire discussion is pointless.
[QUOTE=Contag;34665473]What then, are your criteria for an immoral act?[/QUOTE]
Well, if we are coming from a non religious perspective, it would have to be some thing about the agreement of the majority of any one society. A religious perspective would obviously be absolute based on the holy book in question.
For example: Biracial marriage was at one point considered a moral negative, but is now considered morally neutral.
I dont mind them, I dont really care about other peoples beliefs and opinion because we're living in a society with a lot of different cultures. But what really grinds my gears is when they try to force it on the rest of us and call us horrible humans for just following our nature, eating animals.
In terms of morals regarding meat, I think I'm more of a "the end justifies the means" kinda guy.
We're killing animals, but we're doing it to feed ourselves and because meat is a good source of proteins.
[editline]13th February 2012[/editline]
The fact that it's tasty is just a pleasant bonus.
[QUOTE=Simski;34677952]In terms of morals regarding meat, I think I'm more of a "the end justifies the means" kinda guy.
We're killing animals, but we're doing it to feed ourselves and because meat is a good source of proteins.
[editline]13th February 2012[/editline]
The fact that it's tasty is just a pleasant bonus.[/QUOTE]
So are you saying that animals exist to be eaten? That's pretty stupid. Infact, they existed long before humans. Then we came along and ruined the natural food chain completely. Why do you think we have sensitive skin? Why do we not have any sort of natural defense mechanism other than our wits? Because we're not meant to be at the top of the food chain.
[QUOTE=sgman91;34659687]You seem to be attacking people's moral arguments a lot. Have you yet logically shown how avoidable suffering is morally wrong?[/QUOTE]
sure, but if you're arguing that's the case, your whole system of morality is silly. I flirt a lot with nihilism so I'm open to the lack of logic of any system of morality; my axiological understanding of avoidable suffering as morally bad is purely intuitive. I don't really see much point in debating ethics with someone who doesn't think suffering is bad.
[editline]13th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;34661302]Is stubbing a toe morally wrong? That is a form of suffering.
Or how about punishing a misbehaving child? That causes measurable suffering upon the child yet isn't morally abhorrent.
I would argue that suffering in itself isn't enough to conclude anything about morality. The purpose behind the suffering is what makes it good or bad. So my question for you would be what is the morally incorrect purpose behind the suffering of animals that are to be eaten, and why is that purpose wrong.[/QUOTE]
There's no intentionality in stubbing your toe. The use of violence to teach your children is pretty abhorrent categorically, imo, and is a terrible way of raising your children.
I'm doing a normative ethics module at the moment so I'd expect my beliefs to shift slightly, but my statement of morality at the moment is "A is morally permissible if and only if it is not the initiation of coercion (coercion being the substitution of one's aims onto a victim, including violence, threats and fraud)."
My axiology (theory of moral values/goodness) is separate from my moral beliefs (what we ought to do/not do). Ultimately the strongest argument against meat for me is that it initiates coercion on a being with its own aims, failing to respect its self-ownership. Although suffering is morally bad, that's a separate argument and imo a much weaker one.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34679539]sure, but if you're arguing that's the case, your whole system of morality is silly. I flirt a lot with nihilism so I'm open to the lack of logic of any system of morality; my axiological understanding of avoidable suffering as morally bad is purely intuitive. I don't really see much point in debating ethics with someone who doesn't think suffering is bad.[/QUOTE]
A drug addict hitting rock bottom could possibly be the best thing imaginable for that person, causing to become unimaginable happier and in the process improve the world around them... yet hitting rock bottom also causes large amounts of suffering.
Again, why do you go the rout of using violence when I said punishment of children? Punishment can include grounding, deprivation of objects, etc., etc. All of these cause suffering and are very avoidable, yet in the big picture they are for the greater good.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34679539]There's no intentionality in stubbing your toe. The use of violence to teach your children is pretty abhorrent categorically, imo, and is a terrible way of raising your children.[/QUOTE]
I bought up the toe example specifically because it has no intentionality to show that suffering, by nature, is morally neutral. The situation is what makes suffering obtain any moral standing.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34679539]I'm doing a normative ethics module at the moment so I'd expect my beliefs to shift slightly, but my statement of morality at the moment is "A is morally permissible if and only if it is not the initiation of coercion (coercion being the substitution of one's aims onto a victim, including violence, threats and fraud)."[/QUOTE]
So a parent is NEVER allowed to punish their child? This also would mean police officers would never be able to arrest a criminal.
The common thread in these examples is that suffering for the greater/common good is morally beneficial.
The police officer example is a fun example for me because the whole monopoly of legitimate coercion that the state controls is positively vile. I fail to see how the whole world doesn't agree with me that there's a definite flouting of moral principles in statism in general, but that's a different topic altogether.
I don't really see how the non-aggression principle would flat out condemn every instance of punishment, but to some extent, yes. Rules/laws should be replaced with negotiations to limit the power of individuals. Children are an interesting case because it brings intentionality, rationality, etc, into the forefront, and I haven't realllly came to any particularly strong conclusions in cases where those are lacking (in the case of children for example). However what I fundamentally believe is that any system of morals should be based on consent. The killing and consumption of another being fails to respect consent on any level.
[editline]13th February 2012[/editline]
And sure, sometimes suffering is beneficial; I have no issues with that assertion. However that doesn't make it morally permissible to deny a being their self-ownership.
The thing I find weird about vegetarians is this: They're trying to stop domesticated farm animals from being treated badly, but they seem to have absolutely no care for wild native animals. If you took some land and wanted to grow crops on it you'd have to destroy literally 100% of the native animals and plants so you can have an ideal spot for the crops. But if you were to raise cows on that same amount of land it would destroy far less of the native habitat, assuming it's land that cows can naturally graze on.
[QUOTE=CowThing;34679892]The thing I find weird about vegetarians is this: They're trying to stop domesticated farm animals from being treated badly, but they seem to have absolutely no care for wild native animals. If you took some land and wanted to grow crops on it you'd have to destroy literally 100% of the native animals and plants so you can have an ideal spot for the crops. But if you were to raise cows on that same amount of land it would destroy far less of the native habitat, assuming it's land that cows can naturally graze on.[/QUOTE]
but to raise animals you have to grow even more crops and destroy even more land to feed the animals
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
