Philosophy Now Forum

Given that there are viable nutritional alternatives to eating meat, is killing animals for food morally wrong? Why or why not? What if there were no viable nutritional alternative to eating meat? If humans depended specifically on meat to survive could it possibly be morally wrong to eat that which we needed in order to survive? Is there any moral distinction to be made between killing wild animals versus killing domesticated animals for food?

For those who eat meat, if it were conclusively, logically provable that killing animals for food was immoral, would you then do the right thing and abstain from eating meat? For those who are vegetarian due of ethical concerns, if it were conclusively, logically provable that killing animals for food was NOT immoral, would you still be a vegetarian?

For me personally; I tried being a pescatarian for 2 years and ultimately gave it up because I enjoy the taste of red meat too much. Even if it were provable that eating meat were morally wrong I sort of doubt I would ever give it up unless laws were passed forcing the food industry to stop making it available.

...I don't care if God in Heaven Above comes down to Earth itself, sticks His Hoary Finger in my face and declares 'NO MEAT FOR YOU, HENRY': I'm eatin' meat.

My eyes face forward and my teeth are sharp: I'm a bright predator ape...gimme meat.

Gary Childress, I think you know very well that a meat diet for all the world's people is impossible, and that to sustain a meat diet for the more affluent is unsustainable without preying upon poorer peoples.

I think that you also know that each food animal is sentient, it feels pain and terror. The cow grieves when her young calves are taken away.

The practical remedy is not to give up all at once, but to cut down on meat and dairy, to eliminate food waste, and to pay wages that enable people to buy outdoor fattened and locally killed food animals.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 5:33 pm Gary Childress, I think you know very well that a meat diet for all the world's people is impossible, and that to sustain a meat diet for the more affluent is unsustainable without preying upon poorer peoples.

What about a vegetable diet? Is it possible for the more affluent (who presumably don't 100% raise their own vegetables in most cases) to sustain a vegetable diet without "preying upon poorer peoples".

I think that you also know that each food animal is sentient, it feels pain and terror. The cow grieves when her young calves are taken away.

They're sentient but it doesn't seem like they are quite on the level of human beings. I think we sort of believe that cows don't realize that their whole raison d'etre is to be used for a source of human food. Is it even clear that cows have a concept of what a reason for existence is or of dread at the thought of being here for no other purpose than human consumption?

The practical remedy is not to give up all at once, but to cut down on meat and dairy, to eliminate food waste, and to pay wages that enable people to buy outdoor fattened and locally killed food animals.

If animals are sentient and feel pain and terror and this is an all around bad thing, what difference does it make if an animal is "outdoor fattened" and/or "locally killed"?

It's not the eating of them that's immoral, it's the way they are raised and killed that is. We have the means to raise and kill them with no suffering at all. Humans just aren't motivated or inclined to be bothered doing that. In China dogs are routinely skinned alive for consumption. To care about the suffering of other animals you have to first have the capacity to imagine yourself in their 'shoes'. How would YOU like to see your friends/family skinned alive in front of you and know that you are next?
Brilliant documentary worth watching:
http://www.documentarytube.com/videos/h ... an-being-2

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 4:18 pm Given that there are viable nutritional alternatives to eating meat, is killing animals for food morally wrong? Why or why not?

To answer this successfully the word 'morally' would need to be discussed, and the meaning of it agreed and accepted upon first.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 4:18 pmWhat if there were no viable nutritional alternative to eating meat?

Every species does what it needs to stay alive and keep procreating, so if we, collectively, or a person, singularly, NEEDS to eat meat to stay alive, and we/they want to stay alive, then we/they will eat meat. Obviously in much earlier previous times human beings needed to eat meat.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 4:18 pm If humans depended specifically on meat to survive could it possibly be morally wrong to eat that which we needed in order to survive?

I doubt it very much that the definition of 'morally' would not include what was NEEDED in order to survive and keep living. 'Morally' also would involve ALL things and not just some, would it not?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 4:18 pm Is there any moral distinction to be made between killing wild animals versus killing domesticated animals for food?

To Me, killing any thing unnecessarily would be the same for any living thing, so if we are killing some thing necessarily then I can not, yet, see any moral distinction between wild and domesticated. And, if we are to be brutally honest with ourselves remember we humans are animals too.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 4:18 pmFor those who eat meat, if it were conclusively, logically provable that killing animals for food was immoral, would you then do the right thing and abstain from eating meat? For those who are vegetarian due of ethical concerns, if it were conclusively, logically provable that killing animals for food was NOT immoral, would you still be a vegetarian?

Personally i have eaten both but I do not think just proving some thing really has that much of an influence on an individual. I have to have a desire/want to do some thing before I will do it. Proof has shown to be ineffective. It has been proven that we can live on either no meat diets or just meat diets, but this will never persuade the other to change and follow another course. Other examples of proof being ineffective is that there has not yet been any proof that God does exists but some people still BELIEVE that GOD does exist, and at the same time, there has not yet been any proof that God does not exist but some people still BELIEVE that God does not exist. People do what they want to do because that is what they WANT to believe. The same thing goes with the proof that polluting the world is the wrong thing to do ("morally"), just extend the exhaust pipe of any motor vehicle into the car itself and close the windows and see how many people and for how long they will stay inside. We KNOW, because we have the proof, that it is wrong to pollute but we all still keep on doing it. We all keep on driving or polluting somehow.

To Me, morality is an inner-knowing of what is right and wrong, and then wanting to follow that knowing for the very reason it is the right thing to do. Morality is not some thing people just follow and do just because other people express what should be done. We have to want to do some thing before we will do it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 4:18 pmFor me personally; I tried being a pescatarian for 2 years and ultimately gave it up because I enjoy the taste of red meat too much.

If you were brought up never tasting red meat would you then enjoy the taste of red meat? I think and hope the answer is obvious.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 4:18 pm Even if it were provable that eating meat were morally wrong I sort of doubt I would ever give it up unless laws were passed forcing the food industry to stop making it available.

What we become addicted to, can sometimes be hard to break.

What if every other person gave up eating read meat, with each helping and supporting each other, would that influence your doubt about ever giving it up?

Most of us are addicted to our ever polluting cars and enjoy driving around in them, but if everyone else were driving around in pollution-free vehicles would you want to drive around in a polluting vehicle? Some addictions are harder to give up than others, but with help and support all addictions can be completely broken. No person is born addicted to some thing, except maybe love. We are all introduced to the things that we then become addicted to. For example if there were no taf, then no person would nor could be addicted to it. If you were not brought up with some thing, then you can not become addicted to it.

A question I like to ask is, Why do you eat the type of meat/animal that you do?

And, Why do you not eat other types of meat/animals? (Remembering the human animal also?)

If you look at the cultural differences, and in the differences of what types of meat/animals people kill and eat, then the answer should be obvious.

Now, imagine if you were brought up in another country or culture, and/or in another period in time, would you still enjoy the exact same tastes of meat/animal that you do right now?

And now, imagine if you were brought up in a whole planet where no person ate meat, because they had discovered it was unnecessary to do so, and thus that killing animals was also unnecessary, and everyone was still just as happy and prosperous, or maybe even far more so, as they are now. Would you then still enjoy the taste of meat? Would you think to yourself that you will just start killing animals and eating them if you did not need to?

What animals would you choose to start killing and eating, if you did think this.

If we do not need to eat meat, then why do we keep doing it? The answer is found in working out why do you/we continue to do all the unnecessary things we do like putting salt on our food/meat, even after it has been refrigeratored or frozen, and cooked, or why do we eat any of the foods we eat that we do not need? Is it because it is necessary to eat it or because we have learned and acquired a desire for that?

What I would suggest is 'morally' right, is only doing what is necessary (needed) in order to keep the species surviving and procreating. Every thing else, besides what is needed, are just wants. Wanting, in turn, is just greed. And, greed has been a big part in our downfall.

If we, human beings, need to kill animals in order to survive, then so be it. But who do we now look to, to decide which animal is it morally right kill and which animal it is morally wrong to kill? Does the human animal have more moral right to live here on earth? I think if we honestly looked at ourselves we would see that it is us who is the only real animal destroying and killing our one and only home.

If we can keep living, surviving, and procreating by not killing any animal, then that is what we need. I also do know how hard it is to stop wanting to do something that you really enjoy and have also done almost all of your life, like eating meat. But I am sure the more people that do stop the easy it is for others, and the more beneficial it would be especially for our children and grandchildren, and so on. As soon as a generation or two who do not see and hear (experience) some thing, then they will not speak (do) that thing. I also know how intelligent humans beings are and that they will very quickly devise a way to provide the lack of nutrients that meat selling companies keep telling us that we need and will not get if we do not eat meat.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 6:43 pm It's not the eating of them that's immoral, it's the way they are raised and killed that is.

Good point, regarding the importance of how they are raised and killed.

The answer will depend on how one defines "morality." From a utilitarian perspective, as Singer points out, this could be immoral. However, utilitarianism is not morality per se, but merely one moral framework we use. It is inconsistent with human evolutionary biology, which, as one example, results in most parents favoring their children over strangers, a position morally at odds with utilitarianism, and one of the reasons utilitarianism has no real traction for many. While the naturalistic fallacy should be avoided, the fact remains that we are meat eaters, by evolution. To state that eating meat is immoral, one would, therefore, have to engage in a position that is counter to human nature.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 9:35 pm The answer will depend on how one defines "morality." From a utilitarian perspective, as Singer points out, this could be immoral. However, utilitarianism is not morality per se, but merely one moral framework we use. It is inconsistent with human evolutionary biology, which, as one example, results in most parents favoring their children over strangers, a position morally at odds with utilitarianism, and one of the reasons utilitarianism has no real traction for many.

To you, what exactly is 'human evolutionary biology' defined by?

If 'evolutionary' is defined by change, of some sort, then human "evolutionary" biology could, by definition, also change over time. Human evolutionary biology in this sense could be changing all the time.

If just most parents favor their children over strangers, then that by itself does not mean it is a position morally at odds with utilitarianism. Human biology may be changing over time and through evolution this change may be moving towards utilitarianism. Obviously if not ALL humans beings are behaving in a certain way, then to suggest that a behavior that not ALL human beings do is human evolutionary biology, in the sense of human biology can not change, which is what you were trying to suggest, would be wrong. So, utilitarianism is not, on both senses of human biology, inconsistent with evolutionary biology. If more parents did not favor their children over strangers, then more people would be favoring ALL instead of only just some. If ALL are favoring, thus also are doing for, ALL, then that would be utilitarianism, right?

The reason, by the way, why utilitarianism has no real traction for those parents for example who favor their children over strangers is because utilitarianism is totally opposite of this behavior. Favoring only some, instead of treating ALL equally is greed, which is completely opposite of what utilitarianism is, right?

Science Fan wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 9:35 pm While the naturalistic fallacy should be avoided, the fact remains that we are meat eaters, by evolution.

The fact is 'we', human beings, are human beings - full stop. Putting another label on us such as 'meat eaters' for example does not make us that. What about the human beings who do not eat meat, and only eat fruit and vegetables for example, are you saying they are not human beings?

Further to this human beings have evolved, and continue to evolve, eating meat, but they are not necessarily solely "meat eaters". If human beings can continue surviving without eating any meat at all, which they can, then what does that make us human beings really?

Science Fan wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 9:35 pm To state that eating meat is immoral, one would, therefore, have to engage in a position that is counter to human nature.

Are you suggesting here that our human nature is to eat meat? If you are, then that would imply we human beings would die if we did not eat meat. But many human beings are living evidence, and thus the proof, that we can live without eating meat. So, to understand that we human beings can live without meat is not a position counter to human nature. It is a position of seeing the facts.

To Me, human nature is our ability to learn, understand, and reason any and every thing. No other animal, nor species that we know of now, can do this. So this ability is what separates us from all other known animals, and thus is what makes us human. Or in other words human nature.

Gary Childress asked me:

If animals are sentient and feel pain and terror and this is an all around bad thing, what difference does it make if an animal is "outdoor fattened" and/or "locally killed"?

1. Outdoor fattened animals have better lives than animals kept in feeding lots, generally speaking.

2.Very local slaughter houses, ideally next door to the farms, save the animals from the long distance transports which are the cruellest aspect of their generally cruel lives. The animals are not enough watered or rested and many individuals arrive at the point of slaughter dead or dying.

Your other questions are generally impractical. The emphasis in animal welfare campaigns is to make a difference. We do so by encouraging smaller helpings, meat-free days, and willingness to pay a little more for quality animal products.

The one exception to the above is foie gras. The manner in which the livers of captive geese are caused to be diseased is appalling cruelty. Foie gras is therefore indefensible and should not exist.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 10:08 am The one exception to the above is foie gras. The manner in which the livers of captive geese are caused to be diseased is appalling cruelty. Foie gras is therefore indefensible and should not exist.

If no one eats it, no one will make it and it will cease to exist.

Same with all those animals. If no one eats the food-animals, cows and such, then most of those that otherwise would have existed will not ever exist.

So the lesson is, better for the cow to not ever exist than to live a life that inhibits natural form, and is defined by man as miserable and in fact is made miserable by man that inhibits the design of the form.

This reduces to the principle: to never have existed is better than a miserable existence.

Cows would be expensive pets, like horses but less useful. If cows ever go feral because people won’t eat them anymore, no one except Save The Cow organizations, and other charities, will spend money to feed them. No one will take care of the cows, either. Other than an occasional pet, or zoo cows, they will live short lives of fear, riddled with parasites like most wild things. If they learn the knack of mingling with people the way dogs have done, the proximity of humans will keep predators at bay. If cows ever become sacred world-wide then I suppose accommodations will be structured into society for those that can mingle, but ridiculously high populations won't be encouraged.

Geese would do just fine without humans' interference, parasites and all.

soon the government will supply your food

save the planet - eat soylent green

-Imp

The argument that human nature is changing, and may be changing so that utilitarian ethics is consistent with human nature is completely at odds with known science. While there is a debate over the level of selection, it is either individual selection or group selection at work, not the global human population selection that would need to take place according to utilitarian ethics. So, it's highly unlikely human beings could ever evolve into utilitarian calculating machines.

Parents favoring their children, as evolutionary theory predicts, is most definitely inconsistent with utilitarian ethics. This was even admitted by Singer, perhaps the leading utilitarian advocate alive today, when it was discovered that he was favoring his own ill mother, as opposed to spending his resources promoting some abstract concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Evolution does not have to explain every single individual's behavior, merely averages.

It is also not the case that humans are evolving fast enough for anyone to notice any significant changes, so, for all practical purposes, for those of us alive today, human nature is fixed and shall be throughout our lives.

While science may not be able to determine ethics, it can certainly tell us why we have the moral debates we do, and why people engage in a relatively narrow range of behaviors. Science can also give us the relevant facts we need in making moral judgments. Knowing that we are naturally meat eaters is a relevant fact regarding the issue of whether eating meat is moral. In and of itself, however, it cannot tell us whether eating meat is moral. For that, we merely need to add another premise, outside of science, to make the connection with a moral conclusion. For example: 1. We naturally eat meat. 2. Diets that are consistent with our human nature promote our well-being. 3. We should morally encourage people to eat in a manner that promotes their welfare. 4. Therefore, eating meat is moral. In this argument, premise 3 falls outside of science.

Although we may need something in addition to facts regarding our nature, in order to make moral conclusions, it is not the case that human biology is irrelevant to morality. Such a claim is tantamount to stating that morality appears out of thin air. While science may not be able to determine moral issues, it can also be stated that without science any moral judgment is questionable because it would be based on ignorance of the relevant facts.

Science Fan wrote:

Parents favoring their children, as evolutionary theory predicts, is most definitely inconsistent with utilitarian ethics. This was even admitted by Singer, perhaps the leading utilitarian advocate alive today, when it was discovered that he was favoring his own ill mother, as opposed to spending his resources promoting some abstract concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Utilitarian ethics are good for politicians and voters, but bad for individuals. If I were a very rich banker I should vote Labour while supplying my old mother with the best health care that my money can buy.

With regard to animal welfare if my old mother is concerned about animal welfare she won't want to eat bits of dead animals who have lived cruel lives.

My old mother might also vote Labour while accepting my gift of private health care. She might also be active in trying to bring best health care to the masses whose sons are not rich bankers, which would be the case if she voted Labour. In order to bring the best health care to the masses (and similarly for education) it's necessary not only to do away with inequality but also to raise the standards of the welfare state so that they are equal to the best of private provisions.

The right name will do for test-tube meat,
what Cheerios! did for grain.

When food is hard to find, attitude changes.
- Food becomes a sacred link to life.
- One feels quite grateful to have found the food.

If any individual stops eating meat, no creature will be saved.
- Sustaining an identity as one who does not eat meat is more the impetus.