How do you, as a meat-eater, justify the violence inherent in your food?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Not trying to speak for KH, but I agree with his quoted post.

If it was for that night only, then yes. Last night I ate the vegetarian option at my cafeteria, because the meat options didn't look as good to me. The calculation came down to what tasted better and, for that night, the vegatarian preference looked as though it tasted better.

Im going beyond that. Suppose they looked equally appetizing. Exactly equally. Would it make sense to aovid the meat option out of deference to the intell (broadly defined of the animal) And I select the pig, not out of my religious background, but because KH and I seem to be in agreement that its the most intelligent animal customarily eaten in western culture.

[KrazyHorse]

Honestly, the last time I ate pig was...Christmas, I believe.

I do have a pork loin in my freezer that I plan to grill up at some point. It's been sitting there for 2 months or so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

If you had a range of foods before you, and had no particular meat craving at all, would you eat vegetarian in preference to eating pig (health considerations aside)? It seems to me that the utilitarian calculus youve established above would lead to that result.

I would almost always rather eat a meat dish than a vegetarian dish.

But assuming that I had exactly 0 preference ( ) then yes, I would choose the veggie dish, unless I was looking to get large amounts of protein (which I almost always am)

It's a minimal consideration in my mind.

Ok, thats coherent as far as it goes. It seems theres a non-linearity in your ethical calculus, which isnt the same as an inconsistency. The nonlinearity feels arbitrary to me, but I can imagine the arguments that would me made in its defense. though I dont find them very persuasive.

[Arrian]

I actually forgot that I have a slice of ham on my sandwich every day for lunch. But that could easily be replaced by a second slice of turkey instead. Still no big deal.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
How is an UNFERTILISED egg a chicken abortion?

In the mind of a hysterical propagandist for whom emotional manipulation is far more important than facts.

Originally posted by aneeshm
I know that omelettes are delicious, having eaten them many times before.

Rape is pleasureable to the rapist, too. Usually gives him a thrill.

Speaking of hysterical propaganda ... egg eaters are like rapists

Originally posted by aneeshm
I do think that it would be better for humans, animals, and in general the world, if every one of the human race were vegetarians.

I was once a vegetarian for five years, until I decided it was time to take a principled stand against misguided principled stands like animal rights.

Downgrading humans to animal-status, as many animal rights moralists do, is one of the most misanthropic attitudes on the political menu, and hence morally reprehensible in my view.

I might also add that sheep are one of the few ways to make mountainous land economically viable, by producing lambs to eat, wool, and keeping the grass cut for the tourist trade. People who denouce the exploitation of animals will happily condemn humans, it seems to me.

Also, what VJ said.

[KrazyHorse]

The nonlinearity feels arbitrary to me, but I can imagine the arguments that would me made in its defense

I honestly think that the higher primates and dolphins are as close to humans as they are to pigs and dogs.

I wouldn't eat a human being under any except the most dire circumstances (talking about having to kill to eat here) and possibly not even then. I would eat monkey and dolphin if I needed food/protein, even if not in imminent danger of starving, but not simply as a taste choice. I would (and do) eat pig on occasion based on taste. Intelligence and self-awareness are funny things. A normal human being is not simply "twice as self-aware" as a monkey. There is a pretty wide gulf separating the two, in my opinion, and just as wide a gulf separating the monkey from the pig.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

I was once a vegetarian for five years, until I decided it was time to take a principled stand against misguided principled stands like animal rights.

Vegetarianism, for me, is not so much about animal rights as about human morality and compassion.

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Downgrading humans to animal-status, as many animal rights moralists do, is one of the most misanthropic attitudes on the political menu, and hence morally reprehensible in my view.

You have caught hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely.

It is precisely because we are better than animals, that we are not creatures of pure instinct, that I think that it would be better if we were vegetarian.

Originally posted by Cort Haus

I might also add that sheep are one of the few ways to make mountainous land economically viable, by producing lambs to eat, wool, and keeping the grass cut for the tourist trade. People who denouce the exploitation of animals will happily condemn humans, it seems to me.

The other methods include terrace farming, which is equally good, and more productive.

And when there is a choice between the well-being of animals versus humans, humans should be chosen. Nobody disputes that. I'm just questioning the fact that meat-eating is, in fact, in the interest of humans. It it good for us from a moral POV?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Vegetarianism, for me, is not so much about animal rights as about human morality and compassion.

Human morality and compassion can be expressed without vegetarianism. I don't think that eating an animal that you have brought into the world and given a good life to is immoral, because I don't see animals as equal to humans.

You have caught hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely.
It is precisely because we are better than animals, that we are not creatures of pure instinct, that I think that it would be better if we were vegetarian.

The domesticated sheep, or cow, actually has a pretty good life. Humans ensure an adequate food supply, provide healthcare services, and protect them from (other) predators. Their life might be a bit on the short side but it wouldn't exist at all if they weren't to be eaten.

The other methods include terrace farming, which is equally good, and more productive.

I'm pretty sure that depends on the mountain's shape, geology, as well as labour costs relative to the cost of growing crops in competitive areas. What works in India might not work in Cumbria, Wales or New Zealand.

And when there is a choice between the well-being of animals versus humans, humans should be chosen. Nobody disputes that. I'm just questioning the fact that meat-eating is, in fact, in the interest of humans. It it good for us from a moral POV?

As I have argued, I don't think the farming of meat to be immoral. Making people eat lentils, OTOH .....

[MrFun]

Re: How do you, as a meat-eater, justify the violence inherent in your food?

Originally posted by aneeshm
As a vegetarian, I consider meat eating to be abhorrent, for both religious as well as secular reasons.

The religious reason is that there is tremendous violence inherent in the way that food is obtained. Such violence is not good for the perpetrator.

The secular reason is that killing animals and eating them is, frankly, disgusting. Another secular reason is that eating meat kills the seeds of great compassion.


How do you, as a meat eater (if, that is, you are a meat eater), justify the violence inherent in your food, and inherent in the act of obtaining it? Violence of that nature is, after all, negative, no matter which way you slice it.

Fortunately, my conscience does not produce a compelling need for me to justify my diet to other people.

[Barnabas]

I am not going to read all these pages, I just want to Ask Aneeshm if he is aware of the important role of animal protein is human evolution.

If you want to be a dumb herbivore, then be it

[Harovan]

Many of those who refuse to eat animals, happily nourish on seeds.

They're the children of the plants, ffs!

The children!

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Barnabas
I am not going to read all these pages, I just want to Ask Aneeshm if he is aware of the important role of animal protein is human evolution.

That's not a good argument. Rape, killing of the weak, etc., have played important roles in evolution as well.

[Barnabas]

"
Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.

Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.

"


I say we remove half the brain of people like Aneeshm who refuse to eat meat, and continue propagating their decadent dysgenic beliefs....

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Barnabas
"
Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.

Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.

"


I say we remove half the brain of people like Aneeshm who refuse to eat meat, and continue propagating their decadent dysgenic beliefs....

Originally posted by LordShiva


That's not a good argument. Rape, killing of the weak, etc., have played important roles in evolution as well.

[Lord Avalon]

Usually I'm a vegetarian for breakfast.

Beef Pork BBQ

BTW, it's possible to have eaten dolphin, if you ate tuna from a can before there was any such thing as "dolphin safe."