Being vegan for ethical reasons.

Quoting Kaz1983

Can you ethically justify eating meat?

Causing pain, therefore killing, is immoral. In a very simplistic sense how would you feel if your throat was cut, dying slowly from blood loss, feeling pain up until the end, then cut up into tiny morsels, cooked, served over dinner on a table where the people who're eating you don't even give a second thought about what you were, all the while conversing, cracking jokes, yes jokes, discussing how great you tasted or even that you weren't prepared to someone's liking?

Sometimes I get scared of my closest friends and family at how they can eat meat and still say ''I love you''. The cognitive dissonance is disturbing to say the least.

That said we also have science telling us that a diverse diet, suggesting we eat meat, is healthier than a restricted diet like veganism. A good response to this is that such a recommendation stems from ignorance rather than knowledge. We don't know what a good/balanced diet is, nor do we know which foods can provide it and so we suggest a shotgun strategy instead of specific recommendations. However, if my biology is correct, we're designed to eat meat in addition to plants.

Then there's the issue of practicality. Buddhism values all life and yet the Buddha didn't recommend veganism because during his time Buddhist monks had to beg for food and weren't in a position to refuse what was given which may have sometimes included meat.

Perhaps there's hope in the future. Synthetic meat could become a reality and then we could stop killing animals for food.

I can never think of a good answer to this question:

What is true of animals but not true of humans that allows us to kill and eat one but not the other?

But I still eat meat and buy unethical products like caged hen eggs. I guess if I'm happy with animal genocide I can be happy with causing them more suffering before they die.

Quoting TheMadFool

Causing pain, therefore killing, is immoral. In a very simplistic sense how would you feel if your throat was cut, dying slowly from blood loss, feeling pain up until the end, then cut up into tiny morsels, cooked, served over dinner on a table where the people who're eating you don't even give a second thought about what you were, all the while conversing, cracking jokes, yes jokes, discussing how great you tasted or even that you weren't prepared to someone's liking?

Not for me that.

Quoting TheMadFool

We don't know what a good/balanced diet is, nor do we know which foods can provide it and so we suggest a shotgun strategy instead of specific recommendations. However, if my biology is correct, we're designed to eat meat in addition to plants.

You're right we don't know what a balance diet is but we know what is not healthy and what is.. eating meat is not going to kill you but neither is smoking 2 cigarettes a day.... it's a tricky one, you have to be in a position to reject eating certain foods tho but it's cheaper than eating meat, regardless of what you hear on the news.

Quoting fdrake

What is true of animals but not true of humans that allows us to kill and eat one but not the other?

I get what you mean but I suppose it's just a case of trying to justify ones behaviour by the behaviour of animals.. why don't we sniff each other's bums like dogs do when we meet each other or eat our own babies like hippopotamuses do.. there are lots of examples of this, it's called the nature fallacy and is used regularly to justify things, well in this case eating meat.

Synthetic meats aka lab meat, is the future but I would not be surprised if plant based meat products got more and more popular.. things like beyond meat... but yeh imho there needs to be a meat tax, similar to the heavy tax we put on cigarettes and then subsidize fruit and vegetables... beans etc etc... get buying soy milk and almond milk, instead of cow's milk etc.. that needs to happen.

First, I am sympathetic to this view. If we have a philosophical goal of "cause no harm", then these ideas need to be considered. But I do see logical problems (but perhaps this is just me defending my meat-eating, so feel free to call me out):

Quoting Kaz1983

If it's really lacking intelligence, that is the reason why we can kill and eat animals (this is the most popular trait used). We have to justified both "killing and eating animals who lack intelligence" and "killing humans because they lack intelligence" .. if you can't justify both, there is - as Alex points out: "a philosophical inconsistency"

His reasoning is, just because something is less intelligent, does that mean that we want with it?

All of this logic applies to all life, including plants and single celled organisms. I am not saying the whole idea is wrong, but this single point does not say much.

Quoting Kaz1983

Is it possible animals feel pain, more than we do?

Certainly seems possible. Also, once we introduce the idea of "pain", it seems far less likely that plants and single celled organism experience pain, but can we know for sure that they do not? (I honestly don't know enough about biology, is there already an answer to this question? but logically, what is pain other than a signal that your body has been damaged? so it seems plants may have that in some way?)

It seems that killing a plant can be viewed as equally bad to killing an animal (logically anyway), but we need to know more about how pain is experienced to make comparisons of suffering across species.

Quoting Kaz1983

3. "a pig is not equal to a human"

A black person was not seen as equal to a white person? Was slavery legal before? And does it really matter whether a pig is not equal to a human?

I think this still has the same problem as above. When he (or she - Alex?) argues that a pig is not inferior to a human, what makes a plant or bacteria inferior to a pig?

Quoting Kaz1983

4. "the circle of life"

Human beings are no longer a part of "the circle of life", maybe before when we lived off the land and were one with nature but that is no longer the case.

Again, this seems a weak argument. How many people were vegans back when humans lived off the land and were part of the "circle of life"? (IIRC people today, especially Americans, eat a lot MORE meat than our ancestors...but I don't think our ancestors would be good evidence for the need of veganism).

Quoting TheMadFool

In a very simplistic sense how would you feel if your throat was cut, dying slowly from blood loss, feeling pain up until the end,

I wouldn't like that. But if I was just happily chewing grass and then, fade to black. Where is the harm? Particularly if we are talking something like cows or chickens where 99% of them NEVER would have existed without the human desire for meat.

Quoting TheMadFool

then cut up into tiny morsels, cooked, served over dinner on a table where the people who're eating you don't even give a second thought about what you were, all the while conversing, cracking jokes, yes jokes, discussing how great you tasted or even that you weren't prepared to someone's liking?

A well painted picture :grin: Don't forget complaining about how I exercised too much or too little. But that all seems fine to me, as I would be unaware of the whole event taking place (and even if I knew before I died, no huge objections, because I won't be there to "feel" bad about the whole thing). Heck, people are always being poetic about immortality anyway, maybe being consumed by another person means one lives forever in them (bullshit, but not much worse than much of the mystical/poetic crap that is flung around).

Quoting TheMadFool

Sometimes I get scared of my closest friends and family at how they can eat meat and still say ''I love you''. The cognitive dissonance is disturbing to say the least.

I don't understand this part. Do they tell cows "I love you"? Why is it cognitive dissonance? Oh! Are you saying there is cognitive dissonance when they directly address you and say "I love you"? That makes more sense as cognitive dissonance, as they know you view eating meat as a terrible thing and yet they are happy to do it right in your face and even say "I love you " during the meal. Am I even close?


I think the stance you both hold is likely the superior moral position that will eventually win out, but the argument needs work. It may have to wait until science can explain the experience of pain more completely, once we know which organisms experience pain to what degree and how the pain can be increased or reduced, then we can begin to make a more solid argument. in the mean time, rhetoric is likely the best approach (I don't mean that negatively, just pointing out that until the evidence is known, an appeal to emotion, like TheMadFool's description of a person being eaten, is probably the best bet).

Reply to ZhouBoTong The cognitive dissonance lies in expressing love which I take to be a caring attitude towards life, at the same time killing and consuming animals which is obviously the contradiction of love.

Reply to Kaz1983 Eating imported foods is worse. There is enough food to feed everyone already. Advances in agriculture will no doubt expand our efficiency - as it is doing already.

I’d prefer to kill the animals I eat personally. I do find it perverse that many want to distance themselves from the thought of eating animals that have been killed. If your moral disposition toward killing animals to eat repulses you, yet you’re perfectly willing to eat meat sold in the market I’d say you’re a bit of a hypocrite.

Ideally we should all raise and care for the animals we eat. That would be nice. If you don’t want to eat meat fine by me. If you force your children not to eat meat I find that irresponsible. Not to mention we cannot simply switch to full veg because there isn’t current enough viable land to grow on and it would inevitably lead to chopping down forests (and, yes, I’m perfectly aware that this happens already for the demands on meat - a good reason to keep the research going and drop the stigma about GM foods; including livestock).

Quoting ZhouBoTong

All of this logic applies to all life, including plants and single celled organisms. I am not saying the whole idea is wrong, but this single point does not say much.

I suppose I draw the line at an animal being alive and conscious, you cannot reasonably believed that a plant is conscious even if it felt pain, the plant it's not fundamentally conscious... dairy cows and egg laying chickens, about lives shortened dramatically...

Ohhhh half of the beef mince you get at McDonald's, is from dairy cows.. so it using animals, whether that be from milk or eggs - can do more harm than you think.

Quoting ZhouBoTong

It seems that killing a plant can be viewed as equally bad to killing an animal (logically anyway), but we need to know more about how pain is experienced to make comparisons of suffering across species.

You do have a point but animals eat plants themselves, why not just directly eat the plants.. I mean we know that animals feel pain... a line needs to be drawn, killing a pig so you have something to eat, it's not the same as killing an insect... fundamentally it's the same, a life is a life is the life..

It's not practical to not kill any animals, as I said a line has to be drawn.. some vegans eat oysters, their justification is that they don't feel pain.. I don't myself but I can see the thinking behind it..

Quoting TheMadFool

The cognitive dissonance lies in expressing love which I take to be a caring attitude towards life, at the same time killing and consuming animals which is obviously the contradiction of love.

Correct.

Quoting I like sushi

I’d prefer to kill the animals I eat personally. I do find it perverse that many want to distance themselves from the thought of eating animals that have been killed. If your moral disposition toward killing animals to eat repulses you, yet you’re perfectly willing to eat meat sold in the market I’d say you’re a bit of a hypocrite

This I agree with, 100% but unfortunately most people do not want to admit this.. I don't really agree with hunting - securing your own meat but it is the lesser of two evils imho... the eating of meat it's not the problem, just the way we go about making sure it's on the shelf in the supermarket.

In terms of change, what I think we needs to be done (regardless of whether agricultural processes get more efficient over time etc etc..) is have a meat tax and subsidise fruit 'n' vegetable.. now I understand that some people won't like that but if it reduces the amount of meat people eat and increases the amount of fruit and veg people consume on a day-to-day basis..

Not to mention that hungry Jack's and McDonald's will have to charge more money ... people will eat less meat, buy less fast food and consume more fruit 'n' veg... people will cook at home more and for any ethical vegans out there.. less animals will be killed, a lot less .... Imho that needs to be done!

EDIT: anyways the US government subsidizes meat and dairy, yearly they spend $38 billion each year to subsidize meat and dairy... farmer growing fruit and vegetables get nothing in comparison

Eating meat is no worse than eating vegetables. One is eating living, growing things and, sadly, that is a requirement for survival. Only by prejudice do we value animal life over plant life. There's absolutely no merit to the idea that vegetarianism or veganism is in any way "better".

Quoting Tzeentch

Eating meat is no worse than eating vegetables. One is eating living, growing things and, sadly, that is a requirement for survival. Only by prejudice do we value animal life over plant life. There's absolutely no merit to the idea that vegetarianism or veganism is in any way "better".

The animals that are eaten, are fed plants and lots of them.. half the world's plant crops are eaten by the animals that are fattened up to eat.. anyways we gotta eat something... whether that is meat or vegetables.

Quoting Tzeentch

Eating meat is no worse than eating vegetables. One is eating living, growing things and, sadly, that is a requirement for survival. Only by prejudice do we value animal life over plant life. There's absolutely no merit to the idea that vegetarianism or veganism is in any way "better".

It's worse in any number of ways. In terms of resource usage, energy efficiency, climate impact, general ecological impact. Health is debatable, but at least eating lots of meat is generally considered less healthy. The nervous systems of plants and animals, especially common Lifestock animals, is very different.

Whether or not any of this amounts to an ethical consideration is debatable, but claiming there is no difference to base ethical considerations on is ludicrous.

Reply to Echarmion I believe most people's gripe is with the meat industry, rather than the act of eating meat.

Quoting Tzeentch

I believe most people's gripe is with the meat industry, rather than the act of eating meat.

But the meat industry is how most people eat meat, so you cannot separate the two that easily

Quoting Tzeentch

I believe most people's gripe is with the meat industry, rather than the act of eating meat.

I agree with you.. but it's like any business- it's supply vs demand.. I mean obviously the meat industry is here to make money, if there was no demand for meat - there would be no meat industry.

Environmental effects of eating meat:

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/20_july_2018/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1411113&app=false#articleId1411113

Quoting Kaz1983

I get what you mean but I suppose it's just a case of trying to justify ones behaviour by the behaviour of animals.. why don't we sniff each other's bums like dogs do when we meet each other or eat our own babies like hippopotamuses do.. there are lots of examples of this, it's called the nature fallacy and is used regularly to justify things, well in this case eating meat.

I think you misinterpreted the question. It's actually designed to be in favour of animal rights arguments. The idea behind it is to burden a meat eater with a task to find something true of animals that's not true for humans that makes the distinction between killable/non-killable make sense.

It rules out things like pain, suffering, rudimentary self awareness, tool use etc. when applied to all animals. So the meat eater has to go on a case by case basis, which already plays into the animal rights activist's hands.

Quoting fdrake

I think you misinterpreted the question. It's actually designed to be in favour of animal rights arguments. The idea behind it is to burden a meat eater with a task to find something true of animals that's not true for humans that makes the distinction between killable/non-killable make sense.

It rules out things like pain, suffering, rudimentary self awareness, tool use etc. when applied to all animals. So the meat eater has to go on a case by case basis, which already plays into the animal rights activist's hands.

Yep I think I might of misunderstood what you said :)

Who here would be more than willing to have a meat and dairy tax and have that "tax" money re-invested into subsizing fruits, vegetables and products like plant-based milks etc etc?

IMHO it would mean less meat being purchased, plant based milks over cow's milk and people more willing to try tofu over say pork lol...... not to mention more fruit and veg bought...

I'm just curious if the meat eaters on here, would complain or veiw it as a positive move?

EDIT: don't forget the US government subsidizes meat and dairy atm.... they spend $38 billion each year to subsidize meat and dairy... farmer growing fruit and vegetables get nothing in comparison.

The act of eating meat, or other animal products is not, in my opinion, a question of ethics.
If it were fundamentally wrong then we would not be able to do it. If it were fundamentally right then we would not be able to explore an alternative choice. We as humans are living creatures just like animals, and indeed plants. All have a life, all have a death, all must experience suffering, be it pain in the case of animals or stresses when it comes to plants. This is a condition of life. Regardless of intensity, pain ceases at death alongside all other experience.
However, the way in which we treat our living neighbors is really the only point where ethics matters.
So long as true loving kindness is shown to all living things in life, then what is done after death is irrelevant.
The act of killing an another for sustenance is natural throughout the natural kingdom, including in the plant kingdom, and therefore does not fall into the realm of ethics. To say that as humans we have evolved beyond the necessity to consume animals is to say the as humans we evolved beyond nature. The way in which we have industrialised animals, however, is ethically questionable.

Quoting 420mindfulness

If it were fundamentally wrong then we would not be able to do it

It would logically follow that nothing humans ever do is wrong, since then we couldn't do it. So murder, rape, theft, etc are all a-okay now. Got it.

Quoting 420mindfulness

The act of killing an another for sustenance is natural throughout the natural kingdom, including in the plant kingdom, and therefore does not fall into the realm of ethics.

Rape occurs througout the animal kingdom, and thus is natural. Do you condone it?

Quoting Kaz1983

Can you ethically justify eating meat?

Nope. And so I don't. I really don't get why people have such a hard time with this whole issue.

Quoting Kaz1983

Can you ethically justify eating meat?

You can ethically justify anything. For every ethical thought/belief, there is an equal and opposite one. Is one more true than the other? It depends on our criteria for ethical truth. Is one better than the other? It depends on its consequence (that things end up better than worse).

Look I've got no problem with the act of eating meat nor do I have an issue with anybody who DOESN'T know what actually goes on behind closed doors, whether that be the factory farm it came from or the slaughter house it was killed at...

Look there are and will be more alternatives to traditional meats - whether that be plant based pork, chicken, beef or tuna/fish.. give it 10 years and the general public will be eating them, more and more..

Reply to Kaz1983 Hey I agree with you that there are so many vegan options nowadays (and will continue to be more over the coming years) does it even justtiy to continue to eat meat?

I am vegan for ethical reasons and here's how I think of it:

1. Killing is an inherently immoral act. In order to eat the flesh and consume the bi-products of an animal, killing that animal is in order. When you purchase and consume animal products, you create a demand for them which results in the production of more of that product. By purchasing and consuming animal products, you are personally guaranteeing and advocating for the killing of more creatures. Also, it is worth mentioning that the animals the omnis eat traditionally have predators which are often killed by farmers much less humanely than the animals meant for slaughter. When you're eating chicken, it is likely that a wolf also had to die for you to eat that chicken. If this isn't enough of an ethical argument for you, read on.

2. I can get all of the nutrients I need to survive and thrive from plants and so can you, most likely. When you learn this, eating meat, or anything really, becomes less about nutrition and more about satisfying your taste buds. Lots of people could never imagine giving up bacon or hamburgers or whatever because, "tHeY'rE sO tAsTy." At this point, you should ask yourself, "Is this fleeting moment of happiness that I experience from eating this meat more important than the life of the animal that made it possible?" In other words, "Does my momentary mouth pleasure take precedence over the life of this creature?" If you say yes, stay away from me. If you say no, you might like to look into living a more plant-based lifestyle. Food is meant to nourish our bodies and give us fuel to accomplish tasks. We're clever so we made it into an art form, a center of community and a tradition among other things, which is why it can be impossible for people to understand that eating meat is bad for us, the animals and the environment. We're still clever and we can make new, delicious traditions without all the death

3. Meat and dairy farms have proven to adversely impact the environment. Considering that the Earth is one of the only things that we ALL have to share, I want to make as little impact on it as possible so that it is still as beautiful for the veg*ns and the omnis that inhabit it in the future.

Now don't get me wrong, veganism isn't the answer for everyone. Some people would like to argue that any kind of vegism is not financially realistic for many communities. I would counter that by saying that the cheapest foods in the world are rice, oats, beans, lentils and potatoes (aka what they feed your meat) and while nutritious veg is more expensive than the foods I just mentioned, nutritious veg will still be less per pound than meat in *most* parts of the world. In reality, if we weren't shoveling our cheapest crops into the mouths of animals for slaughter and consumption, there would be more of those crops for the poorer parts of the world.

What I really want to talk about is the general ignorance around the dairy industry. You all know where milk comes from, right? If you said, "COWS!" you're only partially correct. Milk comes from mammals when they're lactating. Mammals only produce milk when they're pregnant or right after pregnancy. This means that dairy farms are forcibly impregnating cows over and over again, taking their milk and doing what with the calves? Leaving dairy cows dried up and childless before slaughtering or selling them to milk them (pun intended-- there is a reason the phrase "milking it" has negative connotations) for the last bit of profit they can possibly garner. Our consumer-driven culture is desensitized to and ignorant of the processes that are required to produce the things we love most. It's time we start asking questions about where it all comes from and how it is made.

[quote=Kaz1983]Can you ethically justify eating meat?[/quote]

Why bother? Besides, it's the wrong question.

Plants are nourished by photosynthesis; animals, however, survive by devouring plants or devouring other animals or even by cannibalizing their own kind. So, except plants, the living devour the dead - carcasses (& organic detritus), raw or cooked - which belongs to the background, or embodiment, of all ethical concern and therefore itself cannot be an ethical concern; thus, how (or whom!), rather than what, we eat is a matter of ethics (e g. the industrialized meat & dairy industry and, thereby, its meat & dairy products).

Eventually, vat-grown meat (not just 'plant-based meat' substitutes) will moot the question because its process (A) will not torture and kill any animals and (b) will not degrade the environment remotely on the scale of animal (over)farming. (Also, plant-based diary and @home DIY hydro- & aqua- ponics kits are becoming more widely available ...)

Until then, however, my industrial meat products diet will remain "unjustified" because veganism, etc I find undernourishing and makes me miserable. Life's a grind enough and way too short to be withered away by any arbitrary ascesis ... :death: :flower:

Quoting 180 Proof

Until then, however, my industrial meat products diet will remain unjustified because veganism, etc I find undernourishing and makes me miserable.

Which is weird considering all the negative health effects of eating meat, which reduces recuperation time from injury and training, reduces erectile function, increases the likelihood of coronary disease etc. Etc.

I stopped eating meat recently due to the insane footprint it requires. I still allow myself meat when going out for dinner, which is about once a month.

Quoting 180 Proof

Eventually, vat-grown meat (not just 'plant-based meat' substitutes) will moot the question because its process (A) will not torture and kill any animals and (b) will not degrade the environment remotely on the scale of animal (over)farming.

Bring it on – guilt-free carnivorous delights. :yum:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/08/worlds-largest-lab-grown-steak-unveiled-by-israeli-firm

Reply to Benkei :wink:

Quoting Kaz1983

Can you ethically justify eating meat?

From
William James, Is life worth living?

When you and I, for instance, realize how many innocent beasts have had to suffer in cattle-cars and slaughter-pens and lay down their lives that we might grow up, all fattened and clad, to sit together here in comfort and carry on this discourse, it does, indeed, put our relation to the universe in a more solemn light. "Does not," as a young Amherst philosopher (Xenos Clark, now dead) once wrote, "the acceptance of a happy life upon such terms involve a point of honor?" Are we not bound to take some suffering upon ourselves, to do some self-denying service with our lives, in return for all those lives upon which ours are built? To hear this question is to answer it in but one possible way, if one have a normally constituted heart.

Meat eating can be justified ethically, provided that one lives honorably and does something worthwhile with one's life.

It's the living merely for the sake of living that is problematic.

Quoting baker

Meat eating can be justified ethically, provided that one lives honorably and does something worthwhile with one's life.

Can stealing be justified ethically if in all other aspects of one's life, one lives honorably and does something worthwhile? Of course not, if one wants to live a more ethical life, one way to do it is simply to stop financing cruelty to animals by not purchasing the products of their exploitation. Being good in one aspect of life is not a good excuse to be bad at another, in fact we should try to be as moral as we can in all aspects.

Quoting Kaz1983

Can you ethically justify eating meat?

I can ethically justify killing animals and eating meat myself. I have a hard time justifying my eating of meat that was killed by others who are part of a profit stream related to the killing and processing of animals. The layers of separation between me and the animal are an issue for me.

I see nothing wrong with, and I think it is entirely ethical to treat an animal in accord with it's nature. Prey species are prey; that's what they do. They evolved for it and they are good at it. And they make me a better predator for having tried to engage them in a free and open encounter. I don't hunt predators. I don't even hunt omnivores (like bear, etc.). And I don't hunt animals that mate for life. But I hunt. And I don't hunt to kill. I kill to have hunted. yGasset.

I tried going veggie once (for ethical reasons alone), and I made it for two years. But I couldn't maintain it. I love meat. So I try to assuage my conscience with the idea that I think about the animal I eat, not only as I eat it, but all the animals that make up who I am. Including those I wear (I like leather, belts, boots, etc.). I want to say that I don't merely say grace before I eat, but I try to live in grace with what I eat. But I confess I can't do that when I don't even know the conditions under which the animal I eat was raised or slaughtered. I suppose I might be like Thomas Jefferson, in that I know what I am doing is fucking wrong, but I do it anyway.

I will, however, advocate for, and support changes that force all of us to make it easier to hunt and/or not permit the suffering of animals. Not good enough, I know.

I used to represent a slaughter house and I've been in many over the years. I wish more people had to kill and butcher their own meat. Anyway, I penned the following back then:

Next!

No longer wild, no longer free
Domestic, you belong to me
But that sparkle in your eye
Makes my ownership a lie

No matter what that we have done
You are still another one
I know this now in empathy
As I watch your tragedy

Up the ally on your way
To where you’re going to die today
The smell of death and anxious fear
Now you fathom what is near

The bellows of the ones before
Who’ve passed beyond the cold steel door
Still not sure, you stay in line
Past the gate a false light shines

If it is the worst to be
Time permits you fight or flee
But now the noise and sight to greet
A head-knocked friend slides at your feet

Any chance that it won’t be?
You look around most desperately
Too late, your Sacred Hoop spills on the floor
Down the drain to ever more

Reply to Kaz1983

Quoting Kaz1983

1 "name the trait"

Quoting Kaz1983

2. "a pig is not equal to a human"

Quoting Kaz1983

3. "the circle of life"

All these statements believed to be false create great incentive for me to treat the adversary not as an animal separate, but as a human.

Henceforth, we can now apply further axioms that are non contradictory to the initial statement, however are utilized creatively to realize certain informational discrepancies.

Statement One:

I 1. (name the trait) de-substantializes attributes in an ethical setting. In other words, it equalizes the differentiating attributes, in relation to an ethical regard. Since an equalization takes place, It should be of no concern should I apply a comprehension level similar to ours, to the individual, since traits are of no quantitative value, in correlation to ethics.

We choose to relate ethics on whom we deem similar. equalizing the traits makes us similar. Therefore, humanitarian ethics are now permissive, to an extent.

Statement Two:

Meat is generated from death. Therefore, the question further clarifies into:
Can I kill a man ethically?

And then you could just ask the Truman question, harvest natural/satisfactory deaths without employing torturous activity, and boom, meat is ethical.

Sure, you can justify it in some cases.

Predation is necissary to ecosystems. Given we have killed all the wolves where I live, if we don't hunt the deer, they out reproduce their food supply and then suffer from starvation.

Second, we've killed off or greatly reduced the populations of large ruminates in vast swaths of territory. In some cases, introducing livestock there is, at least in the short term, one of the better options for the ecosystem.

Industrial farming and meat production is obviously absolutely terrible for the environment and produces diets that make people fantastically overweight and unhealthy. Obviously there are better solutions than the ways things are currently done. That said, there will still be some places where livestock and fishing make sense (Iceland is a hyperbolic example where growing is difficult but fisheries are plentiful and the climate is decent for sheep and livestock horses ).

I feel that cannibals have been marginalised here.

Doesn't "vat-grown meat" moot the question of "justification"? Reply to 180 Proof (re: link to article)

If you ask around, you know, do some sleuthing, you'll realize, very quickly I suppose, that nonvegetarians are nonvegetarians for one simple reason: meat is delicious.

Firstly, try to balance the transitory nature of gustatory pleasure with the pain of dying and death. Does it make sense to end a life for the short duration the meat excites your taste buds? That's what a nonvegetarian asked me but he was referencing an ancient text, so he confessed. Back then, what?, 500 BC, physiology as a subject didn't exist.

Your tongue likes a certain flavor for a good reason it turns out. Food that taste good are also very nutritious. The rule: If it tastes good, it's good for your body.

Enter ethics: Indeed, meat has dietary benefits just as sugars (fruits) but...the suffering. It's a bit too much to bear even for those with a heart of stone.

Isn't there a workaround?

1. Humane rearing and killing.

2. Meat substitutes [nutritional equivalents]

3. Extract the meat flavor and use it to make veggies taste like, say, chicken. [This isn't actually a good way to solve the problem. It's what physicians call, disapprovingly, symptomatic treatment - like giving someone an antipyretic (tylenol) for a fever instead of an antibiotic to treat the cause of fever, an infection]

Perhaps we could, ad interim, adopt 1 as a policy while sparing no expenses for a combination of 2 and 3.

As an aside, a theory: Carnivory is, in a sense, cannibalism (we're all genetically related). One cause for cannibalism is prolonged food shortages e.g. famines (vide Wikipedia. Warning: gruesome images). Perhaps, in the remote past, millions of years ago, there was a mega-famine affecting all life on earth forcing some to eat their own kind. What followed is there for everyone to see - go for a safari in Africa to find out for yourself.

Quoting 180 Proof

Doesn't "vat-grown meat" moots the question of "justification"? ?180 Proof (re: link to article)

Vat-grown meat will undoubtably be similar to hydroponically grown vegetables, in the sense of extremely deficient in taste. We already experience a big difference between grass fed beef and grain fed beef. There is something very untasteful about producing growth (quantity) for consumption, with complete disregard for the quality of life of that which is consumed. The vat-grown meat will experience the lowest quality of life possible, and most likely have the least taste as well.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Vat-grown meat will undoubtably be similar to hydroponically grown vegetables, in the sense of extremely deficient in taste.

Did you even read the article I've linked? That's not the experience of those who've actually eaten the 3-d printed steaks. Btw, I've eaten hydroponic grown vegetables and they tasted fine when added to soups and stews.

Reply to 180 Proof
I suppose that's why they say "taste" is subjective.

Quoting 180 Proof

Eventually, vat-grown meat (not just 'plant-based meat' substitutes) will moot the question because its process (A) will not torture and kill any animals and (b) will not degrade the environment remotely on the scale of animal (over)farming.
— 180 Proof

Bring it on – guilt-free carnivorous delights. :yum:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/08/worlds-largest-lab-grown-steak-unveiled-by-israeli-firm

Also, this from Solar Foods in Finland
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.euronews.com/next/amp/2022/01/03/protein-made-from-thin-air-could-be-the-food-of-the-future-for-astronauts-and-may-save-ear

Vegan food is nice; try vegan Donner kebab.

It isn't always unethical to eat meat, it's unethical to be cruel to animals, and then eat meat.

If provided with no alternative to gaining the meat-product other than killing an animal, I'd say, it was unethical for the universe to begin, that is unless killing animals is acceptable, then it's just a matter of farm life quality and killing method.

Quoting Varde

unless killing animals is acceptable, then it's just a matter of farm life quality and killing method.

Raising animals for consumption on a large scale -- and there's no other scale because population -- will always entail treating them like inventories and goods, the process of raising them, storing them while alive, and eventually taking them to slaughterhouse will always involve cruelty because the point is profit. The most cost-effective method is used. So, it's really up to the consumers to stop animal cruelty.

Here's a test to see if vegans care about the welfare of animals: ask them how often they buy meat products.

If the answer is "never", then they are just looking for a way to avoid thinking about what is happening. A vegan concerned about animal rights will buy meat constantly and throw it in the garbage.

They realize that the meat industry won't go extinct until most of the population quits eating meat; and that isn't going to happen any time soon. This means that animals are being raised to be killed no matter what you do with their corpses. If they are already dead, then you should strive to buy the most humanely-raised meats available.

Doesn't matter if you end up eating them or not. The point is to influence the direction of the market. If everyone who cares about animal welfare stops participating, then the market will gravitate towards the people who don't give a damn how their hamburger was raised. That will undoubtedly end up being the worst situation possible for the animals themselves.

[quote=Kenosha Kid]I feel that cannibals have been marginalised here.[/quote]

:lol:

Question: Do you want to be vegan?

Answers:

1. Yes, I want to be vegan (Trying).

2. I am vegan (Accomplished).

3. No, I don't want to be vegan (Refusal).

4. I don't understand the question (Ignorance).

Important questions:

1. Is it possible for the human race as a whole to give up meat? Will that come at a heavy price? Does it boil down to the choice abandon ethics (carnism) OR face extinction? If it does, life's a cruel joke!

2. How can we justify human rights without concern for animal rights?

I haven't read all of the comments in this thread but I do think there is a misunderstanding of the ethics of veganism here. Some people might be vegan for reasons other than ethics, for example personal health or climate change. But the ethics of veganism are simply the very same ethics of everyday human relations as broadly determined over the past several thousand years. In a nutshell, ethical veganism is about extending the same ideas of justice to other species whenever we can. That's it.

As I think about, generally speaking no-one is "a" vegan simply because everyone who follows the law and agrees with justice and human rights is already vegan but may not as yet have extended their ethics to include other species. Some actually may be "a" vegan because they really belong to a vegan club, for example paid up members of the UK Vegan Society.

On this view, the fundamental question is how to decide when and how to behave ethically to other animals. With humans, we largely do it from convention and the law. As yet, convention and the law do not demand similar moral duties to other species as they do to our species. Thus for now it is up to the individual to work out what to do.

The answer to the original question then, is yes, one can justify eating meat as an ethical stance. But it depends on circumstance and context. Ethical veganism doesn't prevent one making that choice, but the cases where it is right to do so are probably limited.

You guys & gals should check this (Environmental Personhood) out!

Some excerpts from the Wikipedia entry:

[quote=Wikipedia]Environmental personhood is a legal concept which designates certain environmental entities the status of a legal person. This assigns to these entities, the rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities and legal liability of a legal personality.[/quote]

[quote=Wikipedia]

New Zealand

In 2014, Te Urewera National Park was declared Te Urewera, an environmental legal entity. The area encompassed by Te Urewera ceased to be a government-owned national park and was transformed into freehold, inalienable land owned by itself.

Following the same trend, New Zealand's Whanganui River was declared to be a legal person in 2017. This new legal entity was named Te Awa Tupua and is now recognised as "an indivisible and living whole from the mountains to the sea, incorporating the Whanganui River and all of its physical and metaphysical elements." The river would be represented by two guardians, one from the Whanganui iwi and the other from the Crown.

Also in 2017, the New Zealand government signed an agreement granting similar legal personality to Mount Taranaki and pledging a name change for Egmont National Park, which surrounds the mountain.[/quote]

If rivers and mountains are persons, a fortiori animals are too and where there are persons, there are rights!

It all seems entirely arbitrary to me. Some say that the problem is pain...or suffering that might be inflicted. A properly killed animal or plant won't feel pain. So, that argument is easily dismissed.

We can only guess that animals suffer at other points the way we manage them or raise them. It would be simple to measure levels of cortisol to see if there's a significant increase in stress between those sampled from wild populations and those raised in barns or pens. I would like to know the results of some reasonably sound empirical studies. Haven't bothered to look.

I think it's speciesist to prefer to eat plants simply because they don't have deep brown eyes, make noises, have fur we enjoy stroking, and/or flick tails. Do we eat plants with indifference only because they don't scream when we harvest them?

Ethics revolves around two gods: Thanatos (Lord of death aka Yama in the Hindu-Buddhist tradition) and Algos (Lord of pain).

Thanatos: All life is sacred. Vegans, you lousy sons of bitches! Options: Synthetic food whatever that is or starve yourselves to death à la Kurt Gödel.

Algos: Way to go Vegans! Keep it up! Nonvegetarians, shame on you! Options: Go vegan.

Reply to gloaming
Empathy works by putting yourself in the others place. Since it’s near impossible to put oneself as how a chicken might feel, we can only use vague imaginative attempts. So seeing what certain animals go through before they are killed can lead one to empathize that the methods of treatment are harmful and thus wrong.

I will give you certain points that people often conflate arguments..For example, is it out of harm or environment? If both, they are coming from two different ethical premises and should be treated separately. One happens to be a positive outcome of the other, but which is the primary ethic? And does the same ethic hold for other goods that are environmentally damaging?

Quoting Agent Smith

If rivers and mountains are persons, a fortiori animals are too and where there are persons, there are rights!

So we should save the elk from being eaten by wolves?

It's my understanding that vegans don't really care about what happens to animals; they just want to feel like they aren't responsible for what happens to animals.

Here's a random fact:
Less than 5% of meat consumers are willing to pay more for less animal cruelty. That number will be even lower after you become a vegan and leave the market for good.

[quote=Tate]So we should save the elk from being eaten by wolves?[/quote]

Carnivores serve an important purpose in the ecology (as of now) - they're part of the overall equilibrium between all life in the global ecosystem. Blind evolution has shaped the biosphere as such. Notice, however, that apart from a few exceptions, ethics was/is still ever/not a priority for evolution - to ensure ecological balance, it'll resort to anything, even "cruel and unsual punishment" (re spider wasps, zombie-ant fungus, to name a few).

Where humans come in is Directed evolution, the purposing of our vast knowledge of genetics and how to manage/control evolution of species so that carnivores are gradually phased out of the ecosystem but not at the cost of ecological equlibrium. This isn't something new (re dog, horse, cattle breeding). Interesting, oui?

Reply to Varde

Quoting Varde

Vegan food is nice; try vegan Donner kebab.

Oumph donner kebab is my favourite here in the UK :yum: . Vivera do nice kebabs too.

Reply to schopenhauer1

Quoting schopenhauer1

Empathy works by putting yourself in the others place. Since it’s near impossible to put oneself as how a chicken might feel, we can only use vague imaginative attempts. So seeing what certain animals go through before they are killed can lead one to empathize that the methods of treatment are harmful and thus wrong.

Makes sense not to increase demand for bringing sentient beings into a life of suffering, doesn't it?

Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole

donner kebab is my favourite

That's good.. you don't want it to be this kind of Donner kebab :eyes:.

Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole

Makes sense not to increase demand for bringing sentient beings into a life of suffering, doesn't it?

Yep. Try to reduce suffering. Vegetarianism is hard. Our ancestors learned the neat trick of killing animals for large amounts of protein that can be stored and used for brain growth with evolutionary time and adaptations. But we did a lot of things in the past that are no longer needed, so that's a certain kind of fallacy.

As Nietzsche again puts it: “Life always lives at the expense of other life’—he who does not grasp this has not taken even the first step toward honesty with himself.”
“The horse eats the grass; the lion kills the horse; the man rides the horse and kills the lion. Life is an ongoing struggle between strong and weak, predator and prey. Cooperation and trade are possible, but they are superficial interludes between more fundamental animal facts about life.

Quoting M777

more fundamental animal facts about life.

Morality out of bad faith. The animal can’t help but do. Humans have the burden of choice, reflection, analysis.

Try being vegan for non-ethical reasons- hate of cows.

Is it reason or rationality veganism appeals to?

Quoting Varde

Try being vegan for non-ethical reasons- hate of cows.

In Islam, pigs are unclean, loathsome creatures! Peeps, please hate me and take me off the menu! Muchas gracias.

Paradox of carnism

To animals:

Either you're in our good books (sacred cows) or in our bad books (filthy pigs)

In both cases we don't eat you (Hindus, cows and Islam, pigs)

Morton's fork.

What gives?

Addendum to Reply to 180 Proof on prospects of vat-grown meat:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/health/fda-lab-meat-cells-scn-wellness/index.html