Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

This, among other things,is what makes this man a world leader in Fringe Scientific Worldviews.Is he throwing out the complete history of animal evolution?Is he stating that we must now conscientiously “evolve” a new moral ethic? Perpendicular to the known world facts,concerning diets and man-animal relationships?Is he stating that the progenitor species of man,who were omnivores,were evolving incorrectly?Where in the timeline of man,were we supposed to stop using animals?Now!Now is the time for this evolutional “correction”?

One other point.In stating that we should beholden ourselves as equal to animals(which I do believe),how do we view the process of other animals preying upon other animals?Are we to state that we are “above this utility”,and in doing so aren’t we proclaiming that we ARE better than other animals?

If vegetarianism can stand on its own,regarding rationality and “moral ethic”(?!!?),then does one need to include the religous(???@!!??)to bolster these views?

What could have been alternatives to man hooking up a yoke to a team of oxen and plowing a field?What were the alternatives for using animal fur to insulate man on his migration northward out of Africa?Would we be here today if humans stopped eating meat thousands of years ago?
For anyone to argue against these past utilities,is an exercise in negative-time realities.
Now,here at the present,how can the human inhabitants of Earth be “taught”(?)that using animals for food,pets,or horsepower is morally unethical?Or does this code of ethics only apply to white,educated,comfortable peoples?Upper-end bourgeoise,and the intelligentsia?

What could have been alternatives to man hooking up a yoke to a team of oxen and plowing a field?What were the alternatives for using animal fur to insulate man on his migration northward out of Africa?Would we be here today if humans stopped eating meat thousands of years ago?
For anyone to argue against these past utilities,is an exercise in negative-time realities.
Now,here at the present,how can the human inhabitants of Earth be “taught”(?)that using animals for food,pets,or horsepower is morally unethical?Or does this code of ethics only apply to white,educated,comfortable peoples?Upper-end bourgeoise,and the intelligentsia?

I would add to your list the theory among EP and cognitive scientists that eating meat was a determinant in the development of our brains. Specifically, the observation that relatively large brains are massively energy-demanding and it would have been very difficult for purely vegetarian early hominids to feed increasingly larger brains. In modern humans, the brain consumes 20% of all energy while accounting for only 2% of body weight. It could be that the faculty for advanced abstract moral reasoning by which we now become vegans would have been biologically impossible to evolve without a meat diet.

Of course, VYAZMA, vegans will brush these arguments off as obsolete- what is true then is not true now so why play by rules which no longer exist? Police, books and internets didn’t used to exist either. So what?

I enjoyed this podcast and find Singer cogent and plain spoken.

I like and agree with the idea of a moral continuum- that there is a degree of moral value and that we do not need to impose black & white standards. To the Christian right Terri Shivo has equal moral value to any conscious, healthy person. This is madness to me, even though I would never say her moral quotient was zero. An embryo is not equal to an adult human and it is also not equal to nothing. I take these points as banal.. but surprisingly many do not.

I was a bit bored in digressions about religion-spawned speciesist bias in both that I think it is not correct and that it is not relevant to a serious discussion of ethics, but that is my atheistic bias I suppose.

Most surpising is what I did not hear: any reason to think meat-eating is inherently unethical. Singer said he became a vegitarian because he did not want to be complicit in the factory farming atrocity. He also said his chief concern is the conditions of life for the animals, that they do not suffer and participate in whatever social organization typifies their species and so on. These are reasonable points. Neither forbid imaginable (if not existant) cruelty-free meat-eating. This past election in California was a win for chickens (but humans, not so much) and is part of the increasing evidence we can successful reform our agriculture practices without destroying them and the economy with it. One small step forward.

[Most surpising is what I did not hear: any reason to think meat-eating is inherently unethical. Singer said he became a vegitarian because he did not want to be complicit in the factory farming atrocity. He also said his chief concern is the conditions of life for the animals, that they do not suffer and participate in whatever social organization typifies their species and so on. These are reasonable points. Neither forbid imaginable (if not existant) cruelty-free meat-eating. This past election in California was a win for chickens (but humans, not so much) and is part of the increasing evidence we can successful reform our agriculture practices without destroying them and the economy with it. One small step forward.

If someone wants to choose the time and place of their dying,it should be completely acceptable,politicaly,and socially.If someone chooses to terminate a pregnancy,so be it.If we can establish sound,non-arbitrarial methods for screening out severely defected fetuses/infants-great!!So on and so forth.As a matter of fact,most of these issues were relevant,thousands of years ago.
So in effect-todays groundbreaking(actually moree breaking)scientists,want to revert to a time when life itself,not laws and religion controlled life.
However,this doesn’t include the use of animals.This topic,somehow we want to move forward.Don’t get me wrong,I love animals.I hate cruel situations concerning the animal/human relationship.I don’t feel threatened about someones proposals towards the recognition of animal rights.I just can’t see where this fits into the picture.The whole picture.How does this jibe with the fact that we are animals ourselves?We are not better animals!!

...So in effect-todays groundbreaking(actually moree breaking)scientists,want to revert to a time when life itself,not laws and religion controlled life.
However,this doesn’t include the use of animals.This topic,somehow we want to move forward.Don’t get me wrong,I love animals.I hate cruel situations concerning the animal/human relationship.I don’t feel threatened about someones proposals towards the recognition of animal rights.I just can’t see where this fits into the picture.The whole picture.How does this jibe with the fact that we are animals ourselves?We are not better animals!!

I do not understand your point about us being animals. Yes we are, and? That makes it natural for us to exploit other creatures because thats what animals do? But we’re also inherently reason-capable and consider the short and long term consequences of our actions.. which is certainly as natural and animal-y as anything else about us.

VYAZMA,

You seem to be saying that if something is “natural” (appears in nature or is part of an evolved set of behaviors), that makes it automatically ethically ok. Animals eat animals, our ancestors evolved eating animals, so eating animals is automatically ok. There are a lot of problems with this approach. For one thing, it’s possible to declare almost anything morally ok based on such an argument. Cannibalism, rape, infanticide all occur in lots of animals besides humans, and these along with slavery, torture, genocide, pedophilia, and lots of other things we don’t think are good today have occurred throughout human history and can be argued to be “natural” human behaviors. Just because other animals do it or our ancestors did doesn’t mean it’s ok. Evolution and history make lousy justifications for moral principles.

As for our being animals, again I don’t think it matters. Of course we are, but that doesn’t mean we have to or should behave like others. We don’t live in burrows, eat our own feces (usually), make nests, or do any of a million other things other animals do. It’s not that we aren’t animals, it’s just that we are like us not like anything else. And the normal human tendancy, built into us by evolution, is to try and figure out the world and make rules for oursleves about how to live. It doesn’t make sense to call those rules “unnatural” just because other animals don’t have them.

There are lots of good argumetns against what SInger is saying, but dismissing him as “Fringe” and claiming eating meat is part of the natural order of things doesn’t work.

...So in effect-todays groundbreaking(actually moree breaking)scientists,want to revert to a time when life itself,not laws and religion controlled life.
However,this doesn’t include the use of animals.This topic,somehow we want to move forward.Don’t get me wrong,I love animals.I hate cruel situations concerning the animal/human relationship.I don’t feel threatened about someones proposals towards the recognition of animal rights.I just can’t see where this fits into the picture.The whole picture.How does this jibe with the fact that we are animals ourselves?We are not better animals!!

I do not understand your point about us being animals. Yes we are, and? That makes it natural for us to exploit other creatures because thats what animals do? But we’re also inherently reason-capable and consider the short and long term consequences of our actions.. which is certainly as natural and animal-y as anything else about us.

OK….Singer states he questions speciesm and dominionism.I agree with those concepts.I believe we are animals and we are not better animals than all the other animals.So in this context how can someone who understands that domionism or speciesm is wrong,turn around and say we’re better than animals,we can decide what’s morally right and wrong?If animals eat animals,and people have been eating animals forever,and will continue to do so,why try to protect animals rights in that context.Couldn’t an anti-specieist understand mans relationship with animals,the same way he understands other inter-animal relationships.
I have already spelled this out in the previous posts above.
Sate..on the other hand,Yes!Of course we are more cognizant,and can make less “instinctual"choices.So if someone chooses not to eat meat,I fully understand that,and respect it,on any level.Morally,economically,religously,squeamishly,etc…..!

VYAZMA,

You seem to be saying that if something is “natural” (appears in nature or is part of an evolved set of behaviors), that makes it automatically ethically ok. Animals eat animals, our ancestors evolved eating animals, so eating animals is automatically ok. There are a lot of problems with this approach. For one thing, it’s possible to declare almost anything morally ok based on such an argument. Cannibalism, rape, infanticide all occur in lots of animals besides humans, and these along with slavery, torture, genocide, pedophilia, and lots of other things we don’t think are good today have occurred throughout human history and can be argued to be “natural” human behaviors. Just because other animals do it or our ancestors did doesn’t mean it’s ok. Evolution and history make lousy justifications for moral principles.

As for our being animals, again I don’t think it matters. Of course we are, but that doesn’t mean we have to or should behave like others. We don’t live in burrows, eat our own feces (usually), make nests, or do any of a million other things other animals do. It’s not that we aren’t animals, it’s just that we are like us not like anything else. And the normal human tendancy, built into us by evolution, is to try and figure out the world and make rules for oursleves about how to live. It doesn’t make sense to call those rules “unnatural” just because other animals don’t have them.

There are lots of good argumetns against what SInger is saying, but dismissing him as “Fringe” and claiming eating meat is part of the natural order of things doesn’t work.

I hate to sound brusque,but I haven’t used the word “NATURAL"in any of the above posts.I explained my reasoning well enough.What is your counterpoint?Yes you can dispute my terminology,you can try to hollow out my evolutionary contexts,what you can’t do is provide a template for the education,and implementation for the eradication of the use of animals by humans.

Above quote:“just because other animals do it or our ancestors did doesn’t mean it’s ok"Huhn??What?Are we having the same discussion here?I’m not interested in contrived present day ethics.What does yours and other peoples ethics have to do with the past or the future.(the future being the continued need for many people to rely on animals,in this case)
Again-you used the word “natural"not me.I am speaking from a reality context,not a “natural"context.

McKenz…I would add that on the sum total of all scientific endeavors promoting euthanasia and vegetarianism could be considered fringe.And yes,how could you possibly state that eating meat is not the NATURAL order of “things”(?).
In above:“...claiming eating meat is the natural order of things” I never said “things” but I understand the gist.So…you can claim that eating meat is NOT part of the natural order of things…?

OK….Singer states he questions speciesm and dominionism.I agree with those concepts.I believe we are animals and we are not better animals than all the other animals.So in this context how can someone who understands that domionism or speciesm is wrong,turn around and say we’re better than animals,we can decide what’s morally right and wrong?

It is not about who is superior/inferior as a being so much as who has what capability. Humans have a capacity for both abstract reasoning and connecting that reason to our actions. Few or no other creatures have this property. I don’t tell fish how to swim and they don’t tell me what to abhor. Further, there is no way to be a living human and not decide what is morally right or wrong. Almost every choice you make has at least a tiny moral consideration. I could decide to eat the last donut knowing you want one, but whether I do or not I have made a moral choice. (I’d totally eat it, btw)
What is happening (animal rights movements) is not some new idea or revolution in moral thought.. it is merely the start of us applying ancient moral values in a more consistent way than we previously did.. most likely because previously it was a luxury we could not afford but now we can.

If animals eat animals,and people have been eating animals forever,and will continue to do so,why try to protect animals rights in that context.Couldn’t an anti-specieist understand mans relationship with animals,the same way he understands other inter-animal relationships.
I have already spelled this out in the previous posts above.
Sate..on the other hand,Yes!Of course we are more cognizant,and can make less “instinctual"choices…

No, because we decide what our relationships will be, within limits of survival. Other animals generally have no capacity to understand the ethical consequences of their actions nor the technology to provide alternatives even if they somehow did. We do, and we do.

Some researchers indicate some non-human primates in fact have some sort of moral reasoning. I must conclude that if this is true, and if these creatures are legally “persons” as in Spain for example.. then certainly some of them should be arrested for their misbehavior (for example, killing an infant after becoming socially dominate in order to produce its own heir). Somehow I don’t think anyone wants to follow this line of thought too far.

Ok then.Eating meat is unethical.End of argument.

VYAZMA,

Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seemed to be saying that Singer’s point was wrong because animals eat each other and humans evolved as omnivores. Is that not true? If that is what you were saying, than my “counterpoint” was that’s not a good reason for deciding what is right or wrong for the reasons I gave. If you had some other point that I missed, than what was it?

The reason I brought history into it is that you also seemd to say that using animals for work (ploughing, specifically) and wearing their fur was necessary historically for us to survive, and that seemed to be a point you were making to explain why Singer was wrong. Again, was this not what you meant?

As for “fringe” that’s juts your opinion. Anything that is not believed by the majority can be dismissed as “fringe” including the lack of religious belief that brings us both here. So what? The arguments for something are either good or bad, and their popularity has nothing to do with it. I happen to live in a place where lots of people are vegetarians, and it doesn’t seem fring to me, but either way it’s not an argument for or against what Singer is saying.

Is eating meat the “natural” order of things? Depends on what you mean. Is it parft of our evolutionary history and something our bodies are designed to do, sure? Is it the right thing to do? Not necessarily. That’s why again I don’t think you reference to what happens in nature is a good argument against it. Taking antibiotics and getting vaccinated are not “natural,“ but they’re a good thing. Rape is “natural,‘ but it’s a bad thing. All I’m saying is that what is done in nature or what we evolved to do is not a good reason for or against a particular choice, like eating meat or not eating it.

Ok then.Eating meat is unethical.End of argument.

Actually this conclusion does not follow from either the podcast or our discussion here. What I get is that how we treat animals is subject to moral argumentation and not exempt. There are good arguments eating meat is unethical in and of itself, but none have been advanced here.

I suppose this topic has a moral continuum as much any other. From eating plants to eating babies. We would all say (I hope) that the former is ok and the latter is not. We are looking to draw a line somewhere and we are finding it difficult because there are so many other factors thrown in. Singer argues that currently we use the species line to decide but if we believe in evolution and that we do not occupy a special place in the universe, the species line is an arbitrary one and we need to find another one. He suggests that we should not eat “beings with interests” as his line in the sand which, to me, seems like a more valid one. Actually, I think we already adhere to this one but it’s our perception of “beings with interests” that is off. We tend to anthropomorphize dogs and cats making the thought of eating them repulsive. In the same vein, I doubt we’d continue eating cows if they evolved to be as intelligent as we are.

My line in the sand, I suppose, has always been this skewed notion of “beings with interests” but I rationalized the of meat I eat (which is minimal - maybe once a week) based on the fact that well-raised meat is ok thinking that trading quality of life is a good trade for reduced longevity. I’ll have to give this one more thought but Singer has made a strong case…

Ok then.Eating meat is unethical.End of argument.

Actually this conclusion does not follow from either the podcast or our discussion here. What I get is that how we treat animals is subject to moral argumentation and not exempt. There are good arguments eating meat is unethical in and of itself, but none have been advanced here.

Then advance an actual opinion,[personal remark removed].Quit riding the rails!!

I suppose this topic has a moral continuum as much any other. From eating plants to eating babies. We would all say (I hope) that the former is ok and the latter is not. We are looking to draw a line somewhere and we are finding it difficult because there are so many other factors thrown in. Singer argues that currently we use the species line to decide but if we believe in evolution and that we do not occupy a special place in the universe, the species line is an arbitrary one and we need to find another one. He suggests that we should not eat “beings with interests” as his line in the sand which, to me, seems like a more valid one. Actually, I think we already adhere to this one but it’s our perception of “beings with interests” that is off. We tend to anthropomorphize dogs and cats making the thought of eating them repulsive. In the same vein, I doubt we’d continue eating cows if they evolved to be as intelligent as we are.

My line in the sand, I suppose, has always been this skewed notion of “beings with interests” but I rationalized the of meat I eat (which is minimal - maybe once a week) based on the fact that well-raised meat is ok thinking that trading quality of life is a good trade for reduced longevity. I’ll have to give this one more thought but Singer has made a strong case…

This is insight..it has foundations.Of course you needed to tell us how much meat you eat per week….

VYAZMA,

Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seemed to be saying that Singer’s point was wrong because animals eat each other and humans evolved as omnivores. Is that not true? If that is what you were saying, than my “counterpoint” was that’s not a good reason for deciding what is right or wrong for the reasons I gave. If you had some other point that I missed, than what was it?

The reason I brought history into it is that you also seemd to say that using animals for work (ploughing, specifically) and wearing their fur was necessary historically for us to survive, and that seemed to be a point you were making to explain why Singer was wrong. Again, was this not what you meant?

As for “fringe” that’s juts your opinion. Anything that is not believed by the majority can be dismissed as “fringe” including the lack of religious belief that brings us both here. So what? The arguments for something are either good or bad, and their popularity has nothing to do with it. I happen to live in a place where lots of people are vegetarians, and it doesn’t seem fring to me, but either way it’s not an argument for or against what Singer is saying.

Is eating meat the “natural” order of things? Depends on what you mean. Is it parft of our evolutionary history and something our bodies are designed to do, sure? Is it the right thing to do? Not necessarily. That’s why again I don’t think you reference to what happens in nature is a good argument against it. Taking antibiotics and getting vaccinated are not “natural,“ but they’re a good thing. Rape is “natural,‘ but it’s a bad thing. All I’m saying is that what is done in nature or what we evolved to do is not a good reason for or against a particular choice, like eating meat or not eating it.

Mckenz…I think me,you and Sate are all on the same page.I know we are.As too often happens on this forum,our thoughts become garbled.Your evolutionary proposals are wrong.Come on.Are you discounting everything you know as reality?
Especially you…you are a Doctor of Animal Medicine.Who pays you?The animals or the animal owners?

Ok then.Eating meat is unethical.End of argument.

Actually this conclusion does not follow from either the podcast or our discussion here. What I get is that how we treat animals is subject to moral argumentation and not exempt. There are good arguments eating meat is unethical in and of itself, but none have been advanced here.

Exactly, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating meat, but rather it is how the meat is grown and harvested that it morally reprehensible.

Here’s looking forward to the day when in vitro meat production ends factory farming. Maybe then I will be able to eat meat again.

Ok then.Eating meat is unethical.End of argument.

Actually this conclusion does not follow from either the podcast or our discussion here. What I get is that how we treat animals is subject to moral argumentation and not exempt. There are good arguments eating meat is unethical in and of itself, but none have been advanced here.

Exactly, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating meat, but rather it is how the meat is grown and harvested that it morally reprehensible.

Here’s looking forward to the day when in vitro meat production ends factory farming. Maybe then I will be able to eat meat again.

Yeah,of course the current method of meat providance is crazy.I agree.100%That has nothing to do with this discussion.Wherein people are trying to implant ethics into humankinds strivance to obtain proteins.

Eh! I don’t like meat to begin with, never have, but in vitro sounds even worse than the real thing.  Of course, I haven’t studied it much because I could care less about eating meat.  Even as a child, my mother had a hard time getting me to eat meat.  I just never cared for it.

Even so, I did enjoy listening to Peter Singer this week.  Great show.

VYAZMA,

So if we’re on the same page, what exactly are you saying? I’m just not getting it. You seem to think vegetarianism doesn’t make sense because we evolved to eat meat. I’ve already said why I don’t think that works, and I don’t see what you latest response has to do with anything. WHat have I said about evolution that is wrong? What does it matter who pays me?

Then advance an actual opinion,patronizer.Quit riding the rails!!

Moral disposition aside, perhaps you’ve had too much meat V =P
I’ve advanced several opinions; about moral continuums, about the irrelevancy of theistic input etc.., but what you want is probably this: There is nothing wrong with the practice of eating meat from domesticated animals provide said animals have a reasonably decent cruely-free life. If some want to be vegitarian in order to facilitate change, I can understand that. I do not make that choice because to me its a throwing the baby out with the bathwater type decision. Alternative solutions seem more practical, sound and likelier to succeed.

One more opinion I’d like to advance- Singer oddly calls out humanists for their lack of veganism and presumes the cause is that they are insufficiently divorced from theism. This is bizarre and presumptuous.. as if the humanists can’t possibly have their own ethical position and instead must be guided by vestiges of Christianity (even ones who were never Christian..?).

VYAZMA,

So if we’re on the same page, what exactly are you saying? I’m just not getting it. You seem to think vegetarianism doesn’t make sense because we evolved to eat meat. I’ve already said why I don’t think that works, and I don’t see what you latest response has to do with anything. WHat have I said about evolution that is wrong? What does it matter who pays me?

I’ve said everything I have to say.Please provide an actual argument where it can be posited that eating meat,or using animals is unethical.This argument has already been borne out above.It deals with humankinds observance that animals are being mistreated,and animals are being subjugated.If this is the topic,then put forth a reason why animals shouldn’t be subjugated,right now!!We’ll forget the past Dozens of thousands of years.I am not a pro-active supporter of animal subjugation,I just can’t fathom how people can put aside the history,and put forth a new code of ethics,which is completely perpendicular to the history of animal evolution.Even if you succeed in this code of ethics,then what?
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY ANIMALS SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS,WHY PEOPLE SHOULD STOP EATING ANIMALS.THEN PROVIDE ACTUAL ALTERNATIVES TO THE SYSTEM WHICH HAS EXISTED SINCE THE DAWN OF MAMMALS,THE DAWN OF VERTABRAES,OR EVEN FURTHER BACK.

I guess this debate is more about killing animals than eating them because Singer would probably say it’s ok to eat things that die of natural causes.

Even when it comes to humanely raised animals, Singer would probably say (my apologies if I’m misrepresenting him here) it is not ethical to assume that the quality of an animal’s life is a sufficient trade off for killing it.

Then advance an actual opinion,patronizer.Quit riding the rails!!

Moral disposition aside, perhaps you’ve had too much meat V =P
I’ve advanced several opinions; about moral continuums, about the irrelevancy of theistic input etc.., but what you want is probably this: There is nothing wrong with the practice of eating meat from domesticated animals provide said animals have a reasonably decent cruely-free life. If some want to be vegitarian in order to facilitate change, I can understand that. I do not make that choice because to me its a throwing the baby out with the bathwater type decision. Alternative solutions seem more practical, sound and likelier to succeed.

One more opinion I’d like to advance- Singer oddly calls out humanists for their lack of veganism and presumes the cause is that they are insufficiently divorced from theism. This is bizarre and presumptuous.. as if the humanists can’t possibly have their own ethical position and instead must be guided by vestiges of Christianity (even ones who were never Christian..?).

Well then,advance your moral continuum.More power to you.

I guess this debate is more about killing animals than eating them because Singer would probably say it’s ok to eat things that die of natural causes.

Even when it comes to humanely raised animals, Singer would probably say (my apologies if I’m misrepresenting him here) it is not ethical to assume that the quality of an animal’s life is a sufficient trade off for killing it.

Ok then put this in front of the massive history of animals quest for food.Now,we have decided this was the wrong path.If this was the wrong path-then what?Now we know we were wrong.Fix it.Please.Posit an idea.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY ANIMALS SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS,WHY PEOPLE SHOULD STOP EATING ANIMALS.THEN PROVIDE ACTUAL ALTERNATIVES TO THE SYSTEM WHICH HAS EXISTED SINCE THE DAWN OF MAMMALS,THE DAWN OF VERTABRAES,OR EVEN FURTHER BACK.

In Peter Singer’s world, lions and tigers and bears (oh,my….!) would ALL be vegetarians too!

After reviewing my comments concerning Sate’s posts I realize I was off topic and emotional.Sorry for any disruptions.

VYAZMA.

The argument here is that we know through evolution that humans do not occupy a special place in the universe. Therefore simply saying we can kill anything non-human for consumption is a biased position. You are arguing that eating meat is part of our evolution and therefore should continue to be so. Philosophers call this the naturalistic phallacy, that what is ought to be and it has been pointed out by others in this discussion to not be a sound basis for any system of ethics.

Singer argues that, yes humans have always eaten meat BUT we have sufficient knowledge today to understand that animals have interests and should not be deprived of their lives simply for our consumption. Singer is not arguing that we should never have started eating meat but he is arguing that we can and should now stop this practice.

Sorry. I meant to make it clear that I’m not saying eating meat is necessarily wrong, just that the argument you have used is not a good one.

VYAZMA.

The argument here is that we know through evolution that humans do not occupy a special place in the universe. Therefore simply saying we can kill anything non-human for consumption is a biased position. You are arguing that eating meat is part of our evolution and therefore should continue to be so. Philosophers call this the naturalistic phallacy, that what is ought to be and it has been pointed out by others in this discussion to not be a sound basis for any system of ethics.

Singer argues that, yes humans have always eaten meat BUT we have sufficient knowledge today to understand that animals have interests and should not be deprived of their lives simply for our consumption. Singer is not arguing that we should never have started eating meat but he is arguing that we can and should now stop this practice.

Jerbreck,then kindly explain to me how,through a system of ethics we can introduce this newfound realization of animal rights.

Jerbreck,then kindly explain to me how,through a system of ethics we can introduce this newfound realization of animal rights.

We can start by explaining to the lion why s/he should not eat the lamb!

Also,as I have said before,this is no longer an argument about animals,this is an argument about who has the best argumentative skills.Which I do not.I am still waiting on a reversal of my “Patronizer"comment.

Jerbreck,then kindly explain to me how,through a system of ethics we can introduce this newfound realization of animal rights.

We can start by explaining to the lion why s/he should not eat the lamb!

Peace out Asanta!!

If you’re asking how to make people follow this ethics, your guess is as good as mine. But even if there is no way of making people follow this ethics, which I don’t agree with, that is not an argument against it.

Also,as I have said before,this is no longer an argument about animals,this is an argument about who has the best argumentative skills.Which I do not.I am still waiting on a reversal of my “Patronizer"comment.

Hopefully this remains a discussion, where the truth is favoured, rather than a debate, where debating skills are favoured.

Also,as I have said before,this is no longer an argument about animals,this is an argument about who has the best argumentative skills.Which I do not.I am still waiting on a reversal of my “Patronizer"comment.

Hopefully this remains a discussion, where the truth is favoured, rather than a debate, where debating skills are favoured.

Wise words Jerbeck,there is no truth here though.Only peoples interpretations of ethics.Nonetheless,good points of wisdom.Discussion is the Keystone.This is one of many instances where people on this forum all have a common ground,essentially,but get lost in splitting the hairs of semantics.

I don’t think ethics can be interpreted/defined universally, esp when it comes to the food one eats, for we all relate to the world around us differently and as individuals. Even the words we use to explain the why and wherefore can have different meanings and/or connotations for different people.  Thus no consenses can be reached very easily, esp when one or more people in the discussion can’t agree on even one thing.

VYAZMA,

You’re cheating!  

You can’t just say that you base your position on evolution and nature, ignore my explanations why this isn’t a good reason to make a decision about eating meat, and then claim that we’re spliting hairs or that it’s all about debating skills rather than substance. The substance of my point is simple, and you’re still ignoring it: We evolved to rape one another and to kill one another but we have used our brains to decide that these are bad things and we shouldn’t do them despite being predisposed to. We evolved to eat meat, but there’s no reason why this means we have to do it forever and not think about it or decide to change our behavior. That’s what our brains are for.

Instead of responding to what others are saying, you keep challenging them to provide a complete system of ethics to justify vegatarianism. I would say there’s a lot of that already out there, and Singer is a good place to start if you’re interested, but asking us to do that, in loud all caps, is just avoiding dealing with the things we’ve already said. Still, it seems like we’re talking in circles here, so I’ll try and make a few points that maybe will move the discussion forward.

You seem to accept the idea that causing animals to suffer unecessarily is wrong. I wonder why, since animals hurt each other all the time, and we evolved to hurt other creatures, but anyway it’s a start. Many vegetarians choose not to eat meat because doing so supports an industrial agricultural system that causes pain just for the sake of economic efficiency even when it is avoidable, and it sounds like that makes sense to you, though I imagine you’d howl if anyone tried to tell you you should do the same.

The further question, then is “is there any reason not to kill and eat an animal if you could do so in a way that doesn’t cause any pain?“ Singer would probably say that, as far as the animal is concerned, they have an “interest” in staying alive just as much in avoiding pain, and it doesn’t make any sense to say causing pain is wrong but causing death is ok. If the interests of animals matter at all, then we have to take all of them seriously. Again, the fact that animals kill and eat each other is irrelevant. They don’t have the ability to think about it, so there isn’t any moral issue. We do have the ability to look at them and think, “Hmm, they seem to try really hard to stay alive, so maybe they have an interest in living and maybe killing them isn’t such a good thing.“ No reason we shouldn’t use our brains to think about this one and try and figure it out.

As for alternatives, lots of people don’t eat meat and their lives go on just fine, so there’s really no argument that we have to do so. We do it because we’re used to it and we enjoy it. Fair enough, but pretty weak reasons set against the nasty things we do to make meat.

Anyway, as I said there are long books written about the ethics of eating meat, and I’m not going to try and reproduce them here. If you really are interested in why people think it’s not right to do so, then we can look at specific arguments and see what we think. I sort of get the feeling you just think that vegetarianism is stupid and aren’t really interested in why people would choose it, in which case we’re wasting our time here, but maybe I’m wrong.

You know I doubt Brennen, as a vet, can deny that animals feel pain and even cry in their own way they are hurting.  I know he is against anthropomorphazing animals, but the truth is, they do feel pain.  IF they don’t, why do we have sedatives and pain killers for our pets?  I don’t think a day goes by in which he looks into a sick animals eyes and feels for them as he takes note of their discomfort.  There is something there that can’t be put into human words, except that we know they are ill and don’t feel like themselves.

Now place that into slaughter houses and alike or even those seals they frightfully kill for sport.  I don’t believe for a minute those animals who go to the slaughter houses don’t sense something is wrong and something bad is about to happen, though they can’t put it in those words, just that their lives are in danger and they can’t do anything about it.  Those seals who are unmercifully killed do feel something physical in the process of the barbaric killing and have no comprehension why it is happening.  What about the wolves that are shot from aerial planes?  Do they not feel the pain of the bullet that is lodged in their rear?  If not, why do they fight it?

Yes, that is emotion… empathy to be exact, but it seems, IMO, to be illogical not take on their feelings of pain and discomfort into consideration in order to do something for them.  I would question any vet who did not take concern about the physical discomfort of his/her patient could be feeling, humanizingly perceived or not.  Add to that, animals do have a desire to stay alive, for if they did not, why would they fight back against a perceived threat?  That is one instinct that cannot be denied about any animal- four-legged or two-legged.

IF you, VYAZMA, saw and knew exactly what animals went through before they landed on your plate, would you be so apt to question why many vegetarians and vegans don’t like meat?  I lived on a farm for a few years of my childhood.  I know what happens to them and I think the funniest thing that happened was when my mother chopped a head off a chicken and it ran headless into the woods.  She didn’t get any chicken that night.  The second funny thing was that we had three black angus bull calves- two nursed and one didn’t.  She got one to nurse off of Old Bossy, but the other of the two who were left, she could not get him to nurse.  At the time I knew their names and who was who, for I had not only bottled fed them, but I also got into the pen and played with them often.  I laughed and told her she had the wrong calf.  I got to know them well even though all three looked alike to the untrained eye.  Sadly, they were turned into veal and Old Bossy became jello.  :(  BTW, I also played with the chickens and can honestly say, not too many people can hold chickens like they were pets, but I did and I also had a runt pig that I named Wilber (yes from Charlotte’s Web and no, he wasn’t slaughtered, the dog that was 1/2 wolf that we had killed him and my mother shot him because he tasted pig etc etc)

My grandfather and his brother would take me out in the woods for walks and on occassion I got to look everything from a deer to a wolf in the eyes until they went on their way.  It was truly numinous (see Webster’s definition #3) and since they seemed to deduce that we were of no threat to them, they did us no harm. The trick was to stand very still and just watch with our eyes or at least that was what I was told to do and it worked.  My grandfather nor his brother carried any weapons on these jaunts and we were safe.  I can’t think of anything more awe inspiring than that and there was something about all the animals we saw on these walks that was far better than any church service my grandparents or my mother would make me attend.  My grandfather’s brother was an atheist and felt close to nature on these walks also.

It seems few people have any form of intimate relationship with animals, that they take little empathy with them or if they do raise animals they make them so devoid of emotions concerning those animals, that they have no compassion for them.  So, yes, the reasons are both rational and emotional.  I don’t think the two can be separated when it comes to life, no matter the species, but one has to be willing to see other species as life in order to comprehend the other person and sometimes their use of words too.  No, it is not religious, but could sound religious because life of any sort can be very inspiring and trigger the very same chemical reactions in the brain, esp if the other doesn’t understand the person who is trying to explain their reasons for being a vegetarian or vegan.  Sometimes there aren’t words to explain either, but it doesn’t mean it is any less or more rational than the reasons people do eat meat.  It’s just part of being human and part being human also includes seeing life as being precious, not matter the species (for me it does at least).  It’s what makes life worth living, even if it is nothing more than an appeal to the aesthetic senses.

Brennen is probably right, though, until one is ready to at least understand the other, it is a waste of time to explain.  Which means I am just wasting internet space trying to explain anything more than just saying, “I don’t like meat”.

VYAZMA,

Anyway, as I said there are long books written about the ethics of eating meat, and I’m not going to try and reproduce them here. If you really are interested in why people think it’s not right to do so, then we can look at specific arguments and see what we think. I sort of get the feeling you just think that vegetarianism is stupid and aren’t really interested in why people would choose it, in which case we’re wasting our time here, but maybe I’m wrong.

This only shows me that you don’t read posts thoroughly,if at all.That’s OK,your busy,and I wouldn’t want to read through all this either.I’ve already made all my points,seeing as how you haven’t read them,I’m not going to carry on with this.
I also requested that you reconsider your editing of my “patronizer"comment.I consider this unfounded.I gave supporting evidence as to my descriptive comment,and “patronizer"isn’t anything offensive.
Again,please I don’t want to carry-on with this argument.It deals with possible defects in the “natural fallacy”.This is an argument that is only open to subjective semantics.

*sigh*

VYAZMA<

I’ve read every post of yours in this thread. Every single word. You might at least try to believe that I could disagree with you, or even misunderstand what you’re saying, without just assuming I haven’t been paying attention. You made some points, I suggested they were wrong, and you haven’t answered any of my objections except with very emotional-sounding outbursts and irrelevancies. I agree that pursing the discussion is pointless, but I’m really sorry that we couldn’t find a way to have a better, more purposeful discussion.

In official mode, I have reviewed the posts you suggested, and I don’t see anything that appears to violate the rules of the forum. I consider your addressing another member as “patronizer” a personal remark that isn’t conducive to polite, civil debate. If you feel in the future another member has addressed you in a way that violates the forum guidelines, a better reaction would be to privately call the attention of the moderators to this rather than responding to the other member publically

I eat meat, I wear animal-derived products, I enjoy it a lot and I am fully aware of how it is harvested, I listened to this interview and here is what I have to say:

I have been turned off by the arguments for vegetarianism because of a certain arrogance; “I do not participate in such acts, therefore I am more conscious than you”.
I have had to defend my atheism, I have had to defend my friends’ homosexuality, I had to defend myself back when I smoked and certainly I don’t feel I have to defend my choice of lifestyle and/or stave off those who want me to feel guilty for it.
I am fully aware of the process and the implications, yet I choose to continue consuming animal products, and be sure that when meat is harvested in a laboratory I will still be looking for the real things. (I never drink decaf or artificial sweeteners, but that’s another story)

Yet I don’t plan to disrespect your choices.

Yet I don’t plan to disrespect your choices.

You mean you won’t hate me because I am beautiful? 

Certainly, some vegetarians can be self-righteous and annoying, and that’s never helpful. But how is it arrogant to say, “I’ve thought about this and decided it’s not a good thing?“ Saying that you want to be free to do whatever you want without criticism doesn’t really answer any of the actual ethical issues being discussed here. And realistically, if we want a world in which we are all free to think and say what we like, we have to have a world in which people are free to criticize the ideas others believe in. Religious people don’t like atheists to say God isn’t real, but should we not say that because it’s “disrespectful?“ Do you have any opinions on the actual issues Singer raised, or is your interest only in not being challenged for the choices you make?

Augusto. I think you bring up some important points.

You’re, of course, entitled to continue eating meat and consciously endorse industrial farming but you can’t expect people to respect your choice. Vegetarians are unecessarily smug sometimes when they approach people who aren’t as well versed on the issue as they are and that, inevitably, is not beneficial to their cause. But is the pretentious attitudes of some college hippies any reason for animals to suffer? The animals did not ask the hippies to be pretentious on their behalf. I know this isn’t easy, but ideas should be evaluated independent of the attitudes of those who are presenting them. I’m not saying eating meat is wrong, just that you judge this issue on the facts, not on the people presenting them.

Also, do you think it’s wise to shut yourself off completely from arguments on this issue? Despite the fact that you haven’t forwarded any arguments why you think it’s ethical to eat meat (there are arguments), you are suggesting that nothing will change your mind about this issue. I mean this with all due respect, but your dedication to meat eating sounds somewhat religious.

Can the “interests” argument be applied to non-animals? I submit that Singer puts forth the following (in bold then I expound a bit):

Speciesism is immoral and akin to racism and other nasty -isms
  -the term species applies to all living things, not just animals (the living things in our particular group)
Creatures with interests should be taken into moral consideration
Plants and other life forms certainly have “interests”. The parser for their interests is DNA instead of a nervous system by why does that matter? The reason that herbivores and omnivores tend to have relatively huge livers is that plants poison themselves in an effort to avoid being eaten. Clearly, the plants are exerting some sort of will to survive. Plants respond to their environment to preserve their lives, some grow or actually move toward the sunlight. How can one argue an animal has interests but a plant does not? Because it is not like us?

Some in this very forum have argued that creating domesticated animals for our use/entertainment/companionship is hideous and immoral because we are using them; because they are not allowed a natural life. Why is it different for domesticated plants? Most familiar crops are dramatically disfigured versions of anything “natural” and certainly plants don’t seem to prefer living in tiny regimented patches, doused with chemicals, then destroyed. If we compared a vineyard to a farm, we’d see the same attitude taken toward the residents. Vitners force the plants to fit a small, constrained frame. parts of the plant unlikely to produce the best grapes are hacked off (like beaks and horns) so that nutrients go to the favourable parts instead.

I know some will refute this reason with bits about capacity for suffering (I concur- plants can not feel pain, that is not part of my argument) and about sentience. Again I speak to interests and I would answer that sentience is just a animalist bias used to put animals on a higher moral plane than other creatures as if somehow superior.. much like racism etc..,

This post is absolutely serious, however mad it seems keep in mind vegitarianism sounded equally mad to our progenitors just a couple generations down. As I observed in the other animal rights thread.. however progessive and “fringe” you believe yourself to be.. it is nearly certain your great great great grandchildren will be shocked by the barbarity of your views.

I have to agree on some of the things Augusto said and it is one reason I don’t care much for what PETA does.  Sometimes, I think, even they do some stupid things, as well as become arrogant, sometimes even cruel, if not hateful.  I think they had one ad in which they were mean to obese people.  Sometimes it isn’t what they eat that makes them obese.  Sometimes it’s meds and/or a medical condition they have, in which case PETA was being very rude and obnoxious, yet they keep asking me to support them in what they do.  Um…  No, I rather support WWF, ASPCA, and alike organizations than a group that can sometimes be cruel to others.

Certainly, any philosophical position can be carried to ridiculous extremes. Epistemilogical uncertainty becomes solipsism, moral relativism becomes nihilism, and Xeno’s arrow never reaches its target. One could extend the “interests” argument to anything, even non-living matter. Perhaps someday plants will be considered worthy of moral consideration in a way that they almost never are today. Personally FWIW (which isn’t much), I tend to focus on suffering and behavioral measures of well-being when deciding how seriously to take the interests of another lviing thing. This does privilege animals in a way that is no more arbitrary than any moral stance and at least rational and consistent. But that’s just my opinion.

I have to agree on some of the things Augusto said and it is one reason I don’t care much for what PETA does.  Sometimes, I think, even they do some stupid things, as well as become arrogant, sometimes even cruel, if not hateful.

Agreed. I would add that PETA has been known to sponsor domestic terrorists, convicted arsonists etc.., however much I don’t agree with you I don’t get to burn your house down. There is a healthy dose of hypocrisy as well.. high ranking PETA members gladly use medical treatments made possible by animal-based research.
The worst part is that the extreme and poor behavior of groups like PETA actually pushes people away from important causes. Much like the observation made by Pinker and others that to this very day the majority of women will agree with every tenet of feminism but far fewer will call themselves feminists. That’s because radical feminists of the 60s-today poisoned the well. ALF, PETA and others are making animal rights seem like the domain of radical hypocritical nutjobs which of course it is not.

Since I’m still on dial-up, I can’t listen to the podcasts, so I always skip this part of the forum.  However, I heard about this thread and had to see what was going on.

I’m fascinated by how such intelligent and erudite people can waste so much time nit-picking.  I don’t think history is of much importance here.  I also don’t think concern with the pain of the animals is germane.  It if were, vegetarians would refuse to take any medications which resulted, during their development, in esearch on animals during which they were “sacrificed” for examination. 

If we are to avoid causing pain to any animal, but desire protein from animal soruces, I suppose we could become, as was mentioned earlier, carrion eaters since it should be ok to eat animals that died naturally.  However, that leads to the next step:  should we also eat dead cats, dogs, and humans?

As I see it, it’s a personal choice.  For example, at the annual party of the local Democratic Club in January, I’ve committed to make a large pot of my famous mulligatawny.  However, since a fair number of people there are vegetarians or vegans, just prior to finishing it, I’ll separate it into two serving containers, add chicken bouillon and chicken white meat to one, and vegetable bouillon and fried tofu to the other.  They’‘ll taste just about the same, have about the same nutritional value, but satisfy the “ethics” of the vegans and the “desires” of the omnivores. 

Occam
Wordpad

Ok then.Eating meat is unethical.End of argument.

This is where I ended my interests-post #14.Up to that point.I was putting forth arguments against this so called “natural fallacy”.
In otherwords-where does ethics or morality meet biology?
Where does ethics or morality meet evolution?
Where does ethics or morality meet traditional worldwide methods of food production?
Somehow people began construing my comments as indifferent to animals,or indifferent to peoples values.This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Hi I am new here.  I very often feel that animals we r going to eat really should get a better life because we eat them.  That may shock some but I am a omnivore… sorry to the cows and chickens. :( That being the case I do feel that the animal should have a good life before we kill it and eat it.  I decided to write thought, because I wanted to mention that I am proud to see California make a step in the right direction.  Passing a proposition to treat farmed and ranched animals much better during life, before consumption.  I was wondering if anyone else thought this proposition was going to help?

I have to agree on some of the things Augusto said and it is one reason I don’t care much for what PETA does.  Sometimes, I think, even they do some stupid things, as well as become arrogant, sometimes even cruel, if not hateful.

Agreed. I would add that PETA has been known to sponsor domestic terrorists, convicted arsonists etc.., however much I don’t agree with you I don’t get to burn your house down. There is a healthy dose of hypocrisy as well.. high ranking PETA members gladly use medical treatments made possible by animal-based research.
The worst part is that the extreme and poor behavior of groups like PETA actually pushes people away from important causes. Much like the observation made by Pinker and others that to this very day the majority of women will agree with every tenet of feminism but far fewer will call themselves feminists. That’s because radical feminists of the 60s-today poisoned the well. ALF, PETA and others are making animal rights seem like the domain of radical hypocritical nutjobs which of course it is not.

Precisely.  They are as bad as those anti-abortionists who blow up abortion clinics.  What is the logic in that?  They are against killing, yet they kill the pregnant mother, the nurses, the doctors, receptionists, counselors, etc with one single bomb.  They kill many in the fight to save the acorn?  What sense does that make?  PETA is not much different in their logic more often than not.

Now here is the other thing about PETA- they would even object to a man like my grandfather, who hunted in order to feed his family.  He killed no more than was needed and the whole animal was used in some manner, whenever possible.  He objected to poachers strongly though, but he was not beyond feeding his family. He also lived in the boonies too, which makes a difference when it comes to going to the store in the winter.  One truly lives off the land when they live miles away from civilization.  Killing a rabbit to feed his family is nothing compared to infecting apes with HIV.  However, PETA would make a big to do about even that form of killing animals, even though it is a matter of survival.  However, there is a difference between hunting rabbit or even wild turkey for survival and raising them on modern day farms for slaughter.  I take no issue with what my grandfather did, even though I don’t like meat.  The difference is, I did not live near the Arkansas border, but rather in the city, where grocery stores are plentiful.  IF I had lived out in what my grandfather called “God’s Country” AKA non-civilization, I don’t know if I would have had such a disliking of meat.  I never had to survive off the land, but he didn’t send any of the animals he owned off to slaughter either.  He did it all himself, IF he used them for food at all.  He mostly hunted for meat and as I said, only killed what was needed, which means he would come home with only one rabbit or one deer or wild turkey.  Nothing more and what was not eaten in one meal, my grandmother froze for another.

PETA would probably rather see people who live out in No Man’s Land starve to death than survive on what is available.  One can can vegetables, make preserves, and alike, but they can’t have fresh veggies year around and it isn’t necessarily enough to live on through the winter, esp if beans and alike don’t produce a good harvest.  If you can’t drive out to the nearest town 100 miles away when there is a thick blanket of snow on the dirt rock road, then you have to trudge out on foot into the woods to find food, like it or not.  I’d like to see PETA survive in those conditions.  I don’t think they would make it unless they were willing to lower their standards a little, just enough to survive at least.  I doubt they will find edible berries in the dead of an Ozark winter.  What are they going to do?  Give in and kill Thumper in order to live or die of starvation?  sigh.  Killing Thumper is not my first choice, but I probably would end up giving in and sucking up the bad taste eventually.  It’s only human nature when it comes to survival.  PETA people would probably chose death over reason and logic.  Extremism does that, but when push came to shove, they might not even know what they would do, until they came face to face with it.  Even I can’t say for certain what I would do, except I would do what I needed to survive.

That’s because radical feminists of the 60s-today poisoned the well.

No, women in the 60s were fighting for their rights. Before the 60s a woman:

could not have credit in her own name. If she got a divorce, she had absolutely no credit history.
there were no female police officers, women could only do the lesser paid office work, and even there, was paid less than her male counterpart.
culture dictated what job you were able to get, not ability. I had a brilliant engineering professor who was able to get a lot farther than she would have otherwise, because she used her nickname ‘Andy’ on all of her applications. Even then TRW turned her down for a job, they had previously offered her when they discovered ‘he’ was a ‘she’.
could not obtain birth control with out the assent of her husband.
a rape by your husband was not legally a rape, no matter how brutal, because you were husband and wife, and sex was his right.
domestic violence, no matter how brutal, was a family affair, between husband and wife in which the police would not interfere.

I could go on and on and on. The well was poisoned by the prevailing treatment of women in the 60s, and we had to fight to get it changed. Please find another excuse.

Ok then.Eating meat is unethical.End of argument.

This is where I ended my interests-post #14.Up to that point.I was putting forth arguments against this so called “natural fallacy”.
In otherwords-where does ethics or morality meet biology?
Where does ethics or morality meet evolution?
Where does ethics or morality meet traditional worldwide methods of food production?
Somehow people began construing my comments as indifferent to animals,or indifferent to peoples values.This couldn’t be further from the truth.

VYAZMA. I sort of feel where you’re coming from but I’m not sure you’re actually putting forth arguments against the natural fallacy.

The natural fallacy is assuming because something ‘is’ one way it ‘ought’ to be that way. All it’s saying is that because something ‘is’ is not a sufficient reason to say it ‘ought’ to be that way. There needs to be some supporting argument. As far as I can tell, and I apologize in advance if I mischaracterize what you’ve said or missed something, you are saying that because we evolved eating meat (the ‘is’) it is ethical for us to continue to do so (the ‘ought’). There needs to be another supporting argument.

Also, I think that before we ask ‘where do ethics meet evolution’ we should ask ‘why should evolution meet ethics’? My answer is they shouldn’t because evolution is not a moral process.

That’s because radical feminists of the 60s-today poisoned the well.

No, women in the 60s were fighting for their rights. Before the 60s a woman:

asanta I think you misconstrued my point. I take exception not with people (men and women) who fought against the repression you cited but with groups and individuals who took the fight to absurd extremes.. those who for example say all sex is rape (of women) and no woman should be “subjugated” as a housewife even if that is what she wants.. that we need to make silly spelling changes like womyn etc.., maybe you merely question the chronology and I will cede the point as I am too lazy to research the details for the moment.

Occam,

Your post sounds a lot like you’re dismissing the debate as trivial because you don’t personally feel moved by the issue.

I also don’t think concern with the pain of the animals is germane.  It if were, vegetarians would refuse to take any medications which resulted, during their development, in esearch on animals during which they were “sacrificed” for examination

I think this is an oversimplification and sort of misses the point. People can have strongly held, well-founded ethical beliefs that they don’t adhere to perfectly, particularly when something like their health or life is at stake. The fact that people make use of products that required causing suffering to produce doesn’t mean suffering isn’t an important issue, it just means people are always going to adhere to the most extreme interpretation of an idea no matter what. That’s probably a good thing! Avoiding meat, which isn’t really necessary for health for most people but just soemthing we eat because of habit or for pleasure, can be a way of reducing the suffering one causes even if one doesn’t live in a Jainist bubble.

If we are to avoid causing pain to any animal, but desire protein from animal soruces, I suppose we could become, as was mentioned earlier, carrion eaters since it should be ok to eat animals that died naturally.  However, that leads to the next step:  should we also eat dead cats, dogs, and humans?

This isn’t, of course, the logical consequenc eof an ethical argument in favor of vegetarianism, just a reductio ad absurdum argument. We have a probably innate distaste for carrion because it is more likely to make us sick then fresh meat. For that matter, we developed the habit of cooking meat, and that is healthier than eating it raw, so now most of us prefer it that way. And companion animals or other humans make lousy food sources because we have a natural tendancy to avoid eating things that we have chosen to classify as persons or individuals in some sense. Still, some people name their cows and chickens and wouldn’t eat them and others eat dogs and humans. None of this really has anything to do with the ethics of vegetarianism vs omnivory.

As I see it, it’s a personal choice.

Well, of course it is, largely because most people in our society don’t feel strongly about the ethical issues and so view it as mostly an esthetic choice. As you pointed out, eating people who died naturally isn’t a choice, legally or ethically, because most people view the act as aborrhent. In practice, there often isn’t much more to ethics than how people feel about something, but I like to think discussions like this try at least to be about something more rational and substantive.

Quote Brennen:

Your post sounds a lot like you’re dismissing the debate as trivial because you don’t personally feel moved by the issue.

Your evaluation of my post was quite correct, so I shan’t continue in this thread.
Occam

Quote Brennen:

Your post sounds a lot like you’re dismissing the debate as trivial because you don’t personally feel moved by the issue.

Your evaluation of my post was quite correct, so I shan’t continue in this thread.
Occam

That’s the coward’s way out Occam!.. damn wish I’d thought of it.
hey just kidding, put down the mod hammer. Could I interest you in my doctrine of deliciousness… all the taste, none of the guilt…