Civilised (and, I suppose, uncivilised) society has been breeding animals for millennia in order to survive (perhaps to the point where the human race wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for us being meat eaters), and, while perhaps still morally fishy, they weren't condemned by their peers for doing so. Nothing has really changed since then. As the population has grown, so has the demand for food. Coevally, the scale of farming has increased to meet this demand. Over time the population has grown larger than the amount of land available is able to support, so more intensive methods of farming have had to be implemented. This inevitably means greater numbers of livestock in ever smaller areas. Unfortunately there's not a lot we can do about this right now, and you're certainly not going to be able to convince several billion people to stop eating cows. But even if you could, it would make little difference, not least because crops require just as much land to sustain as livestock. It just means someone else will suffer, in this case it will probably be humans. So which option is more morally acceptable? Eating those lower than us in the food chain, or refusing to do so as a result of our psychological inability to accept the status quo, to the detriment of our species? As for the environmental impact of crops vs. livestock, they're pretty even if you ask me, that is until you take into account the amount of methane produced by cows (although rice paddies also produce a fair amount). EDIT: I also find this an interesting point. Do other animals even have an appreciation of their 'life' and the passing of time? Or is that a by-product of unnecessary anthropomorphising? Is standing around in a crowded pen doing nothing but eating grass really a pleasant existence for a cow? Or are we doing them a favour? And since when is it the normal state for an animal to grow old and die (generally a sign that you've outstayed your welcome)? There are plenty of obstacles to overcome before you get to that point (disease, famine, and predation to name but a few), so would they really fare any better without us? All questions that I suspect few have answers to.
It's been "proven" (considering my general skepticism of everything) that most animals do not have any idea that they're going to die. Therefore, they have no "knowledge" of life - they just do their thing. That's why killing a human, who's conscious of everything he can be conscious of (unless he chooses not to), is considered a crime - but killing an animal (in sanitary, fairly humanitarian conditions) is considered acceptable. We may not need meat to survive, but we eat meat. We've eaten meat since as long as we can remember. To top it off, personally I really like meat. Steak, chicken, turkey, pork... into mah belleeh. I don't want the animals' throats to be cut, and I do want them to be killed as painlessly as possible - and I think we're pretty much there (electric shock to the brain which switches the proverbial lights off). At the end of the day, we're going to eat animals. However, this particular case seems cruel. Kids should eat animals, but not be forced ("educated") to raise them and then eat them. That's just weird and kind of wrong.
This goes to spec, nex, and all the others whom have absentmindedly glossed over my objection to killing plants. If killing a cow is wrong because you're depriving it of a lifespan it cannot perceive, how is killing a plant any more morally right? The concept of pain is a human idea, not an animals. Yes, animals of all sorts are going to avoid pain, why would they not? "Pain", as we perceive it, is merely a warning system that something could cause us to come to great harm, potentially limiting our ability to gather food, or find a mate to keep our genes strong, and still in circulation. So while I agree fully that animals do feel "pain", I contend that it is not in any way shape or form close to how we feel it. We look at others feeling pain, and feel bad ourselves. When animals look at others feeling pain, they either move away slightly, or just ignore it. They've no concept of "suffering", they cannot have one. However, I do believe that plants have the same basic system of avoidance to detrimental stimulus. If light comes in only one direction, does the plant grow however it wants? If the soil is dry/bad in one area, does a tree not try to get it's roots somewhere healthy? Anthropomorphizing human emotions and "feelings" onto meat works just as well as it does to plants. Please stop putting your ideas, and your feelings into the head of a Bos primigenius, s/he doesn't really care. Honestly! If you ever want to contribute in a realistic way to the future of humanity, sanity and factual reasoning have to come into play, as thinking on purely emotional, and ignorant mindset, and using a "if it's cute != eat" system of morals you're going to screw us all over faster than GW with a nuke up his ass and a bowl of beans! PLANTS = MURDER MORALS != AESTHETICS.
Cows are female (Sidenote: my girlfriend once said A cow is somebody's son!, to great hilarity on my part... not hers, though.) Aside from that: I totally agree. Then again, it is very human (humane?) to project human feelings onto other species. Still, no rational or irrational argument is ever going to stop me from enjoying my regular steak & chips (with plenty of vegetables, because I don't discriminate against plants!)
fixed moar bettar. It's immoral to raise animals for food? According to what moral system? The judo-christian system of belief completely justifies the use of animals for food, and even included a set of laws against the mistreatment of animals. Bandying words like immoral around makes you sound like a crazy fundamentalist, frankly.
A thought to put out there to all who say "don't raise animals just to kill them for XYZ". Say we stop doing so, we just let them roam free somwhere. Their population would be completely unsustainable for a start. Also larger predators would have access to more food, breed more themselves, and kill more, until eventually wiping them out. Domesticated animals should not be just let free. It would not work. Ask someone like say Sir David Attenborough about it. I am a meat eater. I am genetically predisposed towards eating meat and vegetables. My digestive system has evolved over the 3million or so years that our species has been evolving to it's current state. I require meat for the protein and iron content, along with the vegetables for other required minerals. If you wish to not eat meat that is fine and your choice. However saying some things are morally objectionable or not does not enter into it for me, as my morals may not be based on the same system as yours. Morals are opinions, not absolutes. That being said I have had a lovely vegetable lasagne in my time and do enjoy salads. But I also enjoy my steak. Whichever you prefer, enjoy! Remember some people around the world cannot make those choices due to famine etc.
ok so according to this thread we should eat neither meat or plants so just how many people reading this have managed to master photosynthesis ?
On the Vegetarian vs Omnivore debate going on: I like eating meat, however my girlfriend is a vegetarian. Since living with her in November it's never been an issue, because we both know the other is not going to change - therefore, life is swimmingly good Eating what you want is fine - we all have free will and have the choice. If you want to eat Vegetarian choices, that's your prerogative. Same for eating meat. I think part of the problem people have, is that they don't understand why people make the choices that they do, and therefore attempt to shoehorn personal beliefs onto others. As a meat eater I do make two points when buying my meat. I'll always ensure I get free range foods, and from the local butcher if possible - to support the local shops and also because I do belive that animals should not be treated in a battery farm situation. Apologies I'm probably not making a lot of sense - long day. I'll finish on one note: Veggies: With all the meat eaters on the planet, there is plenty more veg for you guys Not Veggies: All the more steak for us It's a win-win situation...
I get all my nutritional needs intravenously with a liquid fromed by distilling the nutrients of plants and animals that have died form natural causes, and have consented (and that consent has been legally notarized, and witnessed by at least two lawyers) to being used as foodstuffs. I'll admit, it is a bit cumbersome, but in the end I think it's the right thing to do, you know, for humanity.
Sorry I took so long to respond to this thread, life got in the way yesterday. I already have. Denying an animal a future worth living. Furthermore, it's immoral to use an animal as a means to an end. There's also the additional problem of speciesism. If you are to say that it's fine to kill an animal because it is of X intelligence, then there's no morally consistent way of you saying that it is wrong to kill a human who, for reasons of extremely young age, retardation, or senility, is also of only X intelligence or lower. To do so would be speciesist. Sorry to bring philosophical terminology in to this, couldn't think of another way of explaining that one. There are also some further arguments about intrinsic value of life, and animals being subject-of-a-life, moral patients which we have to respect as moral actors. In short, there are lots of moral problems with killing animals to use them ourselves. I'm not, but nice attempt discrediting me and writing of my arguments. Now you can think up real counter-arguments. I have absolutely no interest in eating animals being wrong, since I eat meat and use animals products. I would far prefer it if animal consumption and use was moral, however I am completely unconvinced that it is. Suffering is not really my main issue here. I'm perfectly sure it would be possible to give animals a completely suffering free life, if only that were the sole issue here. As you say, you're not going to convince several billion people to stop eating cows. I have no intention of even trying. I'm just saying that it's immoral, it's up to individuals to decide what they want to do from there. As for which would be more moral, you've completely loaded that question. I mean c'mon, "psychological inability"? We wouldn't say "So which is more moral? Nuking Iran, or refusing to do so because of our namby pamby psychological qualms about accepting what needs to be done?. Yes, it's more immoral to keep slaughtering tens of billions of animals every single year for our own needs than not. You're unfortunately just not understanding the problem here. The fact that chewing grass or rolling in **** is a pleasant experience for animals means that, if they were to do it in the future, it would also be pleasant. By killing them, they are denied these future enjoyments. Whether they have conception of the existence of the future or not is irrelevant, because we know it exists, and we know we're denying them their future worth living. I'd be interested to see how you can justify killing an animal of higher intelligence than a human? Say, a primate and a human with no neo-cortex (part of their brain physically missing). Actually we've both responded at length. Have you failed to understand, or just not bothered to read? "merely a warning system"? You sound like one of those people who has a physical inability to feel pain - pain hurts. So inflicting pain upon others, whatever species they may be, is immoral. As to your plant objection, which is frankly annoying to have to bother addressing, animals are generally capable of holding a future worth living. That is to say, in the future that animal can have experiences that are pleasurable or satisfying to the animal. Plants lack this capability according to all the evidence we have. Oh right, animals feel "pain", not the nasty horrible pain you feel. Right, I forgot Malfeolo, you're the worlds leading animal neuroscientist. I'll just ignore all the other scientific data out there because you've decided that animal pain feels like being tickled with a feather on a sunday morning. Christ. Next you'll be saying jews don't really feel pain or have a concept of suffering, so it's quite ok if we just build some big ovens. Firstly, and this goes for everyone because it's beginning to get annoying. I am not anthropomorphizing. Animal morality is different from human morality and I fully understand that there are some rights and responsibilities which humans have which animals don't, and vice versa (I've actually taken time to educate myself on the subject.....). Secondly, accusing my mindset of being emotional and ignorant is not a reply to any of my argument. Now, if you want to actually provide proper counter-arguments to this post malfeolo, please go ahead. If you just want to accuse me of anthropomorphising and being ignorant, spend your time actually reading about animal morality instead. I'm sorry to be the one to break this, but there is no proper "judo-christian" moral system. However, it is wrong to eat animals according to a utilitarian system of ethics, some virtue ethicist systems, and some deontological ethical systems. Those three schools of ethics just about cover the basis of every single ethic and moral we have. edit: Long post
I'm a meat eater and i would encourage anyone who eats meat to buy the 'River Cottage Meat' book. Not only is it a great cook book Hugh Fearnely Whittingstal writes a very compelling argument for why we eat meat and why it is acceptable to do so. I stress that he has great respect for vegetarians and vegans and does not say their viewpoints are wrong, he explores both sides of the argument equally. The book also goes into great detail on how animals are raised and slaughtered and i believe it will change your meat eating habits. After reading the book my meat consumption has reduced a lot and i only eat high quality locally sourced meat that i know has been raised to the highest standards. This makes it more expensive, so i eat it less and see it as a treat. Now to address spec's argument about denying an animal life. That is very true but we are also preventing suffering. Animals do not die a nice peaceful death in the wild. They die of disease, starvation or are eaten by predators. A properly raised live stock animal will have access to food, shelter, space and veterinary care. It will then be slaughtered as humanely as possible with as little suffering as possible. Overall it should live a happy, albeit shortened, life. The majority of animals raised as domestic live stock in the west have been bred by humans for so long they can no longer survive with out our assistance. In respect to climate change and the forth coming issues of food security much of the land in the UK is unsuitable for arable farming, but is perfect for grazing animals. The UK produces some of the finest beef and lamb in the world as our native breeds have evolved to convert poor quality grazing into muscle, and they are very good at it. This home grown supply of protein will become increasingly important to us in the future. Do plants feel pain or suffer? I bow down to Nexxos input on this as he knows way more about this type of subject then i do but i will refer to a David Attenborough nature documentary. In this documentary there was a plant which attracted a particular type of butterfly or moth which would lay its eggs on the plants which would hatch into caterpillars which then ate the plant. The butterfly/moth would not lay its eggs onto a plant which already had eggs on it. This plant now grows fake eggs on its leaves and stems which look identical to the butterfly/moth eggs. What struck me was how something with no eyes and no intelligence, (to our understanding), can be self aware enough to know it is under attack and then grow something which is identical in shape and colour to the egg of one species of insect. How does it know how big, what size, or what colour the eggs are? Back to the OP. I think the school should be applauded for what it has done. Children need to understand where food comes from and helping them to empathise with the lamb helps them be aware of animal welfare. If you eat meat you have an bligation to amke sure it has been well looked after and you use all of its after its death.
I know. Unfortunately though, we can't argue that this is a moral thing, because we're setting up the whole system for our own ends. If we were being truly altruistic toward the animals we would breed them and feed them and protect them, but not kill them. It may seem strange, but based on probably the most common moral system (deontology), it's wrong to kill them, but it's not wrong to let them die out.
Well my post was semi tongue-in-cheek, but ethics vs morality is a whole different kettle of fish. Forgive me for my ignorance here but all I know of utilitarianism is the concept of the greater good, ie the suffering of a few for the benefit of the majority. Does that even apply to animals? Formal definition: "The principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have augment or diminish the happiness of the party who's intrest is in question" Problem right there - animals don't really know what happiness is; they operate on instinct. It's also arguable as to whether they suffer - proper treatment and correct slaughter methods should cause no discernible pain to the animal whatsoever.
Personally (as in, justify to myself) on two points: cannibalism is illegal and seems a disgusting idea to me; and I don't eat cute things (monkeys, rabbits, horses, veal). I eat cows, pigs, chicken and turkey and fish. On the first point it's not so much about intelligence but the knowledge of life rather than existence. I assume all humans, even the "mentally less able" (or whatever we're supposed to say) have at least a half-decent realisation of life and death. Then there's also the idea that human society has the moral obligation to look after its weak - not kill or eat them. I'm aware that that's probably a flawed way of thinking, but as a human I can't help myself. A goddamn turkey, however, wanders around being ugly and annoying (yet tasty)... And I feel no moral duty as a human to protect it (from abuse/cruelty - some kids/people are into that, apparently: yes; from killing for food: no). I wouldn't kill a rabbit because it's too cute (I am such a girl sometimes). I would, however, kill a cow, a pig, a chicken, or a turkey. I probably wouldn't kill a fish because they freak me out when they're alive (or eat it if it resembles anything fish-like on my plate).
Meat I love, that I can't deny. And I don't really have a problem with veggies either. If they don't like meat, or can't eat it, (medical reasons etc) Tbh I think some veggie food is insanely tasty too. The only time I 'struggle' with it is when they fail to give a reason, i.e I'm a veggie for being veggies sake or they've never tried meat in their entire life, though even still I'm not one to force my view point as I know people on all sides of the arguments and get on with them all well. On the topic of slaughter in school I don't have a problem with it and neither did my entire school or Ag & Hort class back in lower school. We had a big-ish farm on our school and we knew where the pigs were going. We were even involved in raising them from piglets to the correct age/weight etc. No problems for me or my class, and there were veggies in it. Vegans I don't know about so well so I won't comment out of ignorance.
I'd estimate that I only around 1 day every month or 2 without eating any meat (don't eat fish/seafood so I'm talking cows, pigs, poultry, etc). I am almost certainly going to have meat with my dinner (only real exception is if I have beans on toast!). Lunch is almost always meat based too (ham/bacon/steak sarnies). Breakfast is never meat based in week (no time), but at the weekend is quite likely to be bacon sarnie or a full english. I have absolutely no moral objections eating/killing animals. I do object to animal cruelty and just because animal x is being reared for slaughter does not mean the life it does have should be one of suffering. I always try and buy free range/rspca where possible. I also don't object if people choose not to eat meat or other animal products. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just because I don't agree doesn't make it wrong. Given just how fundamental food is to basic survival, I think it's only right to teach kids about it. Some 'crazies' believe in creationism, should we deny teaching about the big bang just because a vocal few object?
