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

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Cort Haus



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.

Exactly. There are lots of hilly areas where the climate and soil can support animals but the chances for good crops are very limited

[Flubber]

Oh and I don't find there is any violence inherent in my meaty food. I just find great flavor to be inherent in my food

[MrFun]

I'm an unabashed omnivore.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

I thought we were definining intelligence more broadly to include fear of death and destruction, emotion, etc as well as 'self-awareness'

[Kuciwalker]

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

It tastes good.

[Spec]

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

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It tastes good.

Waffles have no meat in them.

Spec.

[KrazyHorse]

We are. I'm sorry if I resort to using shorthand.

As far as I know, we can't exactly disaggregate those factors. Are dolphins more aware of themselves than pigs or are the dolphins simply better able to communicate their self awareness?

The point is it seems a reasonable assumption that if one animal is significantly better at a number of the measurable things (communication, puzzle-solving) that it is also better at the less-measurable things (self-awareness, emotion etc).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


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.



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.



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.



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

1. Its not clear that bringing someone into the world to be eaten is a good deal. What does non-existence mean to a cow? Certainly we wouldnt accept that POV wrt to humans, but granted humans are different. Im still troubled by its application to animals
2. The application of "they have a good life" is clearly very dependent on actual conditions on farms. Many are quite poor. Think living ones entire life in a tiny cage.
3. The economics is complex. For most of human history, livestock were largely fed on rangeland that couldnt economically grow crops, and pigs were fed in part on domestic scraps. Today however, most cattle and pigs are fed on grain and soybeans, and whats more, they are inefficient converters of protein (which is rather different from poultry, who tend to be more efficient converters) Thats why beef is so expensive relative to chicken now, when once upon a time chicken was a luxury food.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
We are. I'm sorry if I resort to using shorthand.

As far as I know, we can't exactly disaggregate those factors. Are dolphins more aware of themselves than pigs or are the dolphins simply better able to communicate their self awareness?

The point is it seems a reasonable assumption that if one animal is significantly better at a number of the measurable things (communication, puzzle-solving) that it is also better at the less-measurable things (self-awareness, emotion etc).

My understanding is that theres been a lot of study of emotion, and that the non-linearity in development happens among the lower mammals who have a well developed amygdala, hypothalamus, etc (IE the emotional centers of the brain) Its the frontal cortex, the seat of reason, that doesnt really develop till you get to the species close to man. I recall this from Peter Whyber's "A Mood Apart" but its been some years since I read it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber
Oh and I don't find there is any violence inherent in my meaty food. I just find great flavor to be inherent in my food

I suspect thats because we have seperated ourselves so much from the process of getting that food. My father-in-law, may he rest in peace, slaughtered chickens personally at one stage of his career. From what QOTM says, he had the injuries to show for it. I can respect that. He did not flinch from the death that is inherent in meat eating.

[Tuberski]

When confronted with vegetarians I always remember the wise words of Jim Gaffigan:

"How can you eat meat? Do you know what they do to those animals?"

"I don't know, but it's delicious."

ACK!

[Cort Haus]

LotM, why the constant substitutions of people for animals in your arguments, in an attempt to build a moral case against eating meat? They are not the same, unless you wish to demean humans by ranking them as animals.

When a bunch of animals can have a discussion such as this one, I will start to consider their lives as above eating, but not before.

[Barnabas]

That is something spaniards say about bulls, that before being killed in the bullfighting event, they live the life of a king, better than any animal

[Provost Harrison]

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

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

Hindu Civilisation Strikes Back!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
LotM, why the constant substitutions of people for animals in your arguments, in an attempt to build a moral case against eating meat? They are not the same, unless you wish to demean humans by ranking them as animals.

When a bunch of animals can have a discussion such as this one, I will start to consider their lives as above eating, but not before.

I think human beings are more compassionate, and more fully human, when they extend to animals some of the compassion they feel toward humans. I recognize important differences, but I think our first test of an argument should be to apply it to humans - if it does NOT work for humans the next step is to see if the differences betwween animals and humans make it applicable to animals anyway. I dont deny that it could be applicable to animals but not to humans - I just dont accept that the differences between animals and humans mean theres no need to examine our behavior towards animals - and given your eloquent discussion of the benefits to animals of being raised as meat, I would be surprised that you saw no need. If animals have no rights whatsover, why would it matter if they benefited?