A secular debate about eating meat.

[MiM]

[Robert_S]

I'm semi-veg. I'll eat venison or other wild game (although I don't care to hunt myself) and I'll occasionally eat fish and other seafood. I'll also allow myself meat when I'm away from my hometown.

I drastically reduce my participation in animal cruelty, environmental degradation and all that without really inconveniencing myself at all.

[JimC]

There's no debate.

Some of us like eating meat.

Some don't.

End of story.

That's fascinating - but I don't think the debate is about people's gustatory and dietary convenience preferences - and I think you perceived that perfectly well. The debate, as the OP makes kinda clear, is about the ethics of eating meat - and by corollary the ethics of the treatment of the animals prior to and during slaughter. Assuming you understood that at time of replying to the thread, this makes this contribution at the very least completely vacuous, if not quite disingenuous...

 :lay:  :lol: 

If you had bothered, you would have seen somewhere in this tortuous thread a statement which recommends purchasing decisions based on animal treatment regimes...  ;) 

My intention with that throw-away post was to make it clear that it is pointless to tell an omnivore to stop consuming meat; they will quite rightly tell you to fuck off...

On the other hand, making arguments about the minimising of pain and suffering by food animals is both reasonable  and realistic...

Why quite rightly? It's all very relative to culture and cultural conditioning, you know?

Do you think people of certain cultures would "quite rightly" tell you to fuck off for suggesting/telling them not to have sex with children, or eat babies, or cut the genitals of minors, or anything else? 

Some people like it, you know. Some people don't. There's no debate.

For a start, cultural relativity can get fucked as well. It's as simple as this; if I want to eat meat, I will, end of story. I will ignore harangues from anybody on this issue of whether it is ethically valid to be part of the killing of animals for food. Homo sapiens are omnivores, and always have been. Those who want to voluntarily depart from the biological reality of being human can do so without any criticism from me, other than a well-meant suggestion that they carefully balance the variety of vegetable food they eat (or be a lacto-vegetarian) if they want to avoid dietary deficiencies...

I will (and have) listen to arguments about the ethical raising of animals in reasonable conditions, and their killing in the most painless and stress-free methods possible. As I have already posted, there are reasoned arguments that a general reduction in the proportion of meat in the western diet may be useful in health terms, as well as environmentally sensible. However, such arguments come from reason, rather than a sentimentalised set of New Age ethics.

Your comparisons with ethical aspects of the treatment of humans are the equivalent of comparing apples to oranges, whatever Peter Singer might say

[Ronja]

I'm semi-veg. I'll eat venison or other wild game (although I don't care to hunt myself) and I'll occasionally eat fish and other seafood. I'll also allow myself meat when I'm away from my hometown.

I drastically reduce my participation in animal cruelty, environmental degradation and all that without really inconveniencing myself at all.

This sounds like a no-nonsense approach, which can work well enough (translation: close enough to our way ).

Free-ranging animal meat is my favorite - reindeer and lamb are both yummy. Beef and pork usually taste rather uninteresting in comparison, and I suspect that has to do with the monotonicity of the typical diet fed to these animals. Though during the last 2-4 years we have started to see some milk / meat from free-to-move-about cows/yearling bulls. These come from modern, fairly large, pretty much remote or bovine controlled / highly automated barns combined with camera-watched and bovine-controlled gated pastures. Some bovines apparently nip out for fresh air every now and then even during our winter, when they get a free choice.

If the meat both tastes better and comes from animals that have been treated well, I don't mind if the price makes me eat meat more seldom. In fact, I kind of like those dynamics.

[zmonsterz]

I'm a vegetarian and people often say to me 'But meat is so so delicous!' and I agree with them but then I tell them that its not about me disliking meat, its about the ethics of it. I know that me being only one person won't make much of a difference by not consuming meat but I will make a difference. Even a smaller one. Perhaps if I'm vegetarian for the rest of my life then I'll save a couple of dozen cows, sheeps, pigs and chicken from being killed. I'm saving a couple of animals by taking away my demand from the market for them. I believe that animals shouldn't be slaughtered like they are in abbatoirs (spelling? meh).

Good post zmonsterz, I would say that you are making a difference, not only by saving some animals (which is great!) but hopefully by exposing people around you to the vegetarian option and the brutality of the meat industry. Since stopping eating dead animals many many years ago a lot of friends and family members have also stopped eating meat. Sometimes it just takes an individual to inform people, to make them think about what they are consuming. With all the pro-meat propaganda on television and billboards it's only right to counter that by sharing your experiences and philosophies on animal suffering.

I've noticed there is a lot of pro-meat propaganda on television lately. In Aus we have an ex cricket commentator telling us to 'EAT LAMB, ITS AUSTRALIAN!' which just makes me role my eyes. Both me and one of my best friends are vegetarian and are often swapping and sharing recipes which is pretty good. We supporting each other and I've also introduced Tofu to my mother and brother and they seem to like it but aren't willing to give up meat altogether. But hopefully I leave an impression.

[Robert_S]

I'm a vegetarian and people often say to me 'But meat is so so delicous!' and I agree with them but then I tell them that its not about me disliking meat, its about the ethics of it. I know that me being only one person won't make much of a difference by not consuming meat but I will make a difference. Even a smaller one. Perhaps if I'm vegetarian for the rest of my life then I'll save a couple of dozen cows, sheeps, pigs and chicken from being killed. I'm saving a couple of animals by taking away my demand from the market for them. I believe that animals shouldn't be slaughtered like they are in abbatoirs (spelling? meh).

Good post zmonsterz, I would say that you are making a difference, not only by saving some animals (which is great!) but hopefully by exposing people around you to the vegetarian option and the brutality of the meat industry. Since stopping eating dead animals many many years ago a lot of friends and family members have also stopped eating meat. Sometimes it just takes an individual to inform people, to make them think about what they are consuming. With all the pro-meat propaganda on television and billboards it's only right to counter that by sharing your experiences and philosophies on animal suffering.

I've noticed there is a lot of pro-meat propaganda on television lately. In Aus we have an ex cricket commentator telling us to 'EAT LAMB, ITS AUSTRALIAN!' which just makes me role my eyes. Both me and one of my best friends are vegetarian and are often swapping and sharing recipes which is pretty good. We supporting each other and I've also introduced Tofu to my mother and brother and they seem to like it but aren't willing to give up meat altogether. But hopefully I leave an impression.

Seitan (which I like to pronounce "satan") is delicious if it's made right.

[Pappa]

Seitan (which I like to pronounce "satan") is delicious if it's made right.

I had a go at making my own once....
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 8&p=161965

[MiM]

Perhaps if I'm vegetarian for the rest of my life then I'll save a couple of dozen cows, sheeps, pigs and chicken from being killed. I'm saving a couple of animals by taking away my demand from the market for them.

You will not save the life of a single domestic animal by not eating meat and taking away the demand. What you might do is saving them from ever being born.

Now you can argue that with current meat industry practices that is a better option, but that discussion is a completely different one. If we can give the animals good living conditions and a painless death, is it still then better not to give them a life at all, than to give them a short life ending in slaughter - or is there even a difference?

Are we now getting close to the secular discussion on abortion? I haven't read that yet.

[Iratus Ranunculus]

It's difficult to justify having any part of the meat industry ,of course theists can fall back on their superiority to animals ,atheists can't .

I think atheists can argue that humans are superior to other animals. We certainly have greater cognitive abilities and a degree of sentience not shared by any other animals. An atheist could argue for a nature-given superiority, rather than a god-given superiority.

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.

There are a few ways you can go with this. (Disclaimer, I am not an ethicist. I am a behavioral and community ecologist who enjoyed taking philosophy, social psych and cognitive psychology courses as electives during my undergrad work and as a result almost had minors in phil and psych, and who reads broadly... but still)

1) The ethical principles we rely on are some sort of metaphysical property. So, suffering is bad because suffering being bad is some part of the universe. The only way for this to work is if you believe in God, so that one is right out.

2) Ethics are arbitrary social conventions, and are thus relative to cultures and individuals. This makes sense, but does not account for the commonalities we see in the rules.

3) Ethical behavior is a necessary condition for any animal to live in any cooperative social group, and it has evolved multiple times to varying degrees of complexity in every cooperatively social species. Ding ding ding! A brief survey of.. pretty much all of biology shows this one to be true.

So, what is the cognitive basis for this? In humans it is Empathy and Theory of Mind, in other social mammals, they also have these things, though perhaps not necessarily as strongly developed. On the other hand, that makes sense because their social systems are not as complex, and they lack some of the capacity for abstraction necessary. So, lets take something simple. Pain and pleasure. No particular abstraction is required to figure these things out. Every living thing will react positively toward some stimuli, and aversely to other sets of stimuli. We can all agree that pain is bad and pleasure is good, because we have a sense of a consciousness and are capable of directly perceiving this. Now, we all also know from experience that there is a certain magnitude of pleasure and pain. Some things feel better or worse than other things. Now, we have a basis. To start, we will assume that all living things have an identical capacity for this. I will throw in a monkey wrench momentarily, but I am trying to establish a general principle here.

So, what makes human suffering different from the suffering of some other arbitrary animal? Say, a size corrected stabbing. The body registers damage, sends that through a network of sensory nerves to the brain, which processes it into some sort of subjective experience. So, there is no reason to think that the pain we feel when we get stabbed is any different than the pain experienced by another organism when it gets stabbed, as a result, there is no qualitative difference. We can infer then that because there is no meaningful distinction other than taxon that the stabbings are morally equivalent.

OK. So, what if we relax our simplifying assumptions. Let us relax the assumption that the capacity to subjectively experience pain and pleasure differs among taxonomic groups. Some animals lack a central nervous system, and thus have, and best, a minimal consciousness. Their nervous system will register damage, but there is no subjective experience, no cognitive user interface. They may react to a painful stimulus by withdrawing the appendage being stabbed, for instance. To use a more appealing example, say you reach out and touch a hot pan. That nerve impulse sends the signal to a ganglion in the spine, which automatically processes the stimulus, sends a signal to withdraw your hand, and then passes it up to the brain to be incorporated into out conscious thoughts. A sea anemone, lacking a CNS, will probably have a perception of pain like that. Plants may well have something similar.

OK, what about an animal with a brain that is not all that bright. Say, a frog(Lithobates sylvaticus because I want to randomly pick a species). A frog has memories, it makes decisions and is aware of the world around it. It is conscious. Its mind has a user-interface. However, it does not have a self-reference. They do not have a sense of self and they do not have an ability to use past experiences to foresee future events. They can use past experiences to inform a decision, such as "this rock is a good place to wait for food" ostensibly because the frog has been there in the past and it has fed well there in the past. However it does not have the capacity to relate one event to another future event without extensive pavlovian conditioning which does not really form a symbolic... ok I wont go into that. Suffice to say, no foresight. An animal like that can subjectively experience pain. However it cannot predict future pain, and no sense of self. So, if we stab it, and stab you, it can subjectively experience the immediate sensation of being stabbed just like you can. Its perception of other things are a bit different. So a stimulus which would elicit fear in us will elicit the same gross physiological stress response, but their perception will be different because they lack the capacity for self reference ("this is happening to me") and they dont form symbolic associations the same way we do (they can still form associations, but it is complicated, and I dont know how they might actually perceive it in their consciousness). The stimulus is basically hard wired to generate a fight or flight response. The point being, were I to remove a person's sense of self and ability to form symbolic associations between objects and events to that of a frog, the physical pain they feel would be approximately equivalent provided I scaled the stabbing implement appropriately.

Lets move up the scale a little bit, and use an animal that has the ability to form symbolic associations between objects, but which does not have a sense of self. A monitor lizard (Savannah monitor lizard in this case. Varanus exanthematicus). Monitor lizards can learn to count(which is something that your cat cannot do. They are in fact, smarter than a cat. Pretty good for a lizard), they can form symbolic associations between objects and events, and they are capable of predicting the future to a certain extent. Far enough that we can use them in our little thought experiment. So, we can stipulate that they can experience physical pain. However, they can also form symbolic associations. As a result, they can actually associate one stimulus, with another. So, say I set up an experiment where I bring out a stuffed rabbit five minutes before I bring out a shock prod and zap the lizard with it. First off, the lizard would associate the shock prod with the zap and when I bring it out, it may become very agitated. It may run, whip you with the tail. Bite, projectile vomit etc. And it may also associate the rabbit with those things as well, and become agitated, because it knows that in the future, it is getting hit with the pain stick. There is a limit to this. They can only go so many steps out:

Say I begin by training the lizard to associate the bunny with the shock prod. OK. Association formed.

Then, I begin introducing a copy of War and Peace to the lizard several minutes before I introduce the bunny. It cannot go from Tolstoy-->Bunny-->Shock prod. They also probably cant go in reverse.

Still, they experience pain, and actual fear as we may experience fear if we heard a lion while hiking in Africa. No real differences there, save in the number of symbolic connections that can be made.

OK, what about animals with a sense of self and more advanced cognitive functions? Say a Chimp. So, all that stuff is the same. They have a sense of self, and a sense of other. They can form symbolic associations between themselves, and others ans can make those many steps out. They are very smart. here, we get to the point where an animal can experience existential dread and worry. So, in biomedical research, if I remove a chimp and do something to it that harms it, and put it back in the cage and I do this linearly along the progression of cages, say what I do causes pain and distress to the chimp. The chimp at the end will worry about what is going to happen to it. It will experience what we may call dread or foreboding.

The point is, we are not talking about differences in kind. We are talking about quantitative (additive, really)differences in suffering, and what sorts of suffering an animal can experience. There is no qualitative difference, where we can consider human suffering to be of a metaphysically difference sort. It is all the same. It is just a matter of whether or not an animal is capable of feeling it.

As far as the meat question is concerned, it depends. Lets take a cow. Cows are about as stupid as a box of bricks. They can feel pain and discomfort, basal fear. About like a frog probably. No sense of self, little capacity for forming symbolic associations between stimuli. So, provided you have happy cows and kill them painlessly, there is no issue eating them. Pigs are a bit different, that is why Pork is off the menu for me unless I am stuck with some sort of family function where I cannot get out of it without getting the "why dont you love me and my cooking?" look from grandmother. They have cognitive capacities about on par with dogs, and dogs have a very advanced social intelligence (for a non-primate).

Also, atheists could argue that humans, whether or not superior, are omnivorous creatures by way of evolution. If we start with the premise that humans are animals, we can argue that since other animals are carnivorous and omnivorous, there should be no inherent reason why humans couldn't also be omnivorous or carnivorous. If a lion can eat meat, then why can't a human?

Because that would be a naturalistic fallacy. Male lions also kill the cubs of other males, dolphins are profligate (and non-discriminatory as to species) rapists, and ducks will often engage in necrophilia (you will never look at Donald Duck the same way again...) and rape. I would be hesitant to use that argument, as the applications of the logic is extended fully are somewhat... self-evidently unethical.

It's actually an argument from superiority that is made by PETA and other vegetarian groups. They are suggesting that we are to be held to a higher standard than other animals due to our sentience - our ability to control our behaviors. We can "choose" what we eat, which is something other animals can't do. That is at the heard of vegetarian arguments, isn't it?

Yes, and the argument is sound if you accept the ethical system they tend to base this on. I do not.

[Animavore]

Interesting, Iratus. Although this...

Because that would be a naturalistic fallacy

Is called an appeal to nature. Not naturalistic fallacy. People always get the two mixed up.

[Iratus Ranunculus]

Interesting, Iratus. Although this...

Because that would be a naturalistic fallacy

Is called an appeal to nature. Not naturalistic fallacy. People always get the two mixed up.

Fair enough. Correction: Appeal To Nature. DAMN YOU G.E. MOORE!!! Every other formal fallacy has a name that makes sense, either in English or Latin, save for yours!!!!

[Pappa]

I think atheists can argue that humans are superior to other animals. We certainly have greater cognitive abilities and a degree of sentience not shared by any other animals. An atheist could argue for a nature-given superiority, rather than a god-given superiority.

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.

Framed in a different way: it's also completely nonsensical to ever suggest humans are superior to other species (plant or animal) when viewed from the perspective of us being wet bags full of self-replicating genes.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think atheists can argue that humans are superior to other animals. We certainly have greater cognitive abilities and a degree of sentience not shared by any other animals. An atheist could argue for a nature-given superiority, rather than a god-given superiority.

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.

Framed in a different way: it's also completely nonsensical to ever suggest humans are superior to other species (plant or animal) when viewed from the perspective of us being wet bags full of self-replicating genes.

Well, if we can't compare qualities among animals, then we lose the ability to make almost any comparison at all - in terms of performance. I think that we can make comparisons as to which is faster, stronger, better at surviving, better at killing, better at talking, better at thinking, better at being conscious, better at abstract thought and planning, better at tool use, better at took making, better at talking, better at listening, better at many other things. There's nothing wrong with such comparisons. We're superior to elephants at playing basketball and making die-cast models, for example.

[Pappa]

I think atheists can argue that humans are superior to other animals. We certainly have greater cognitive abilities and a degree of sentience not shared by any other animals. An atheist could argue for a nature-given superiority, rather than a god-given superiority.

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.

Framed in a different way: it's also completely nonsensical to ever suggest humans are superior to other species (plant or animal) when viewed from the perspective of us being wet bags full of self-replicating genes.

Well, if we can't compare qualities among animals, then we lose the ability to make almost any comparison at all - in terms of performance. I think that we can make comparisons as to which is faster, stronger, better at surviving, better at killing, better at talking, better at thinking, better at being conscious, better at abstract thought and planning, better at tool use, better at took making, better at talking, better at listening, better at many other things. There's nothing wrong with such comparisons. We're superior to elephants at playing basketball and making die-cast models, for example.

Of course different animals are better at specific tasks, but that doesn't give rise to general superiority. Exactly the same could be said of machinery. Which is more superior, a crane or a pen?

[Coito ergo sum]

I think atheists can argue that humans are superior to other animals. We certainly have greater cognitive abilities and a degree of sentience not shared by any other animals. An atheist could argue for a nature-given superiority, rather than a god-given superiority.

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.

Framed in a different way: it's also completely nonsensical to ever suggest humans are superior to other species (plant or animal) when viewed from the perspective of us being wet bags full of self-replicating genes.

Well, if we can't compare qualities among animals, then we lose the ability to make almost any comparison at all - in terms of performance. I think that we can make comparisons as to which is faster, stronger, better at surviving, better at killing, better at talking, better at thinking, better at being conscious, better at abstract thought and planning, better at tool use, better at took making, better at talking, better at listening, better at many other things. There's nothing wrong with such comparisons. We're superior to elephants at playing basketball and making die-cast models, for example.

Of course different animals are better at specific tasks, but that doesn't give rise to general superiority. Exactly the same could be said of machinery. Which is more superior, a crane or a pen?

Well, the word superior is a comparative term and presupposes superior in some way. Ants are superior than people at carrying weight relative to their body mass. But, humans are superior at being conscious, thinking, moralizing, pondering, building, designing, and a whole host of more complex functions. Overall, humans are, therefore, superior to ants.

But, mainly, we consider animals edible for two reasons, I think: (1) the general superiority of humans over other animals - our characteristics set us apart from other animals such that it looks as if we are fundamentally different from them - that's how come it is so easy for people to believe that humans were created specially and in gods image while animals were not and that animals were put here for our purposes - and (2) because our brains generate empathy toward other humans as part of our socialization - we identify with other humans, and not so much with other animals - therefore, we see eating humans as wrong because we think we are like other humans and we know we wouldn't want to be eaten for dinner. So, we cut a general deal - "o.k. - nobody eats nobody!.,.except the other animals..."

That's basically it - is there some "objective" value that exists that makes us either just as good as or no better than or better than other animals. No - of course not. Some animals I would value more than some humans - like a rat is valued more by me than Jared Loughler in Arizona (who shot the Congresswoman there a few weeks ago). But, that's just my value judgment, and some may value Jared more than the rat. It all winds up being a subjective value judgment.

That's what eating meat is - we value other things more than meat - we feel we can get along without the meat, and think it's better not to eat the animals. That's about it. People try to create these "ethical"or "moral" proofs that provide inescapable logic that it's either right or wrong to eat meat. There isn't any, though. It's all smoke and mirrors to cover up what is essentially a subjective value judgment.