Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights

Hi Straggler I would like to think that if/when we discover life on another planet (i.e. when we are the aliens) we will adopt a hands-off approach and not disturb the existing environment, however simple or complex the lifeforms may be. We ought to have learnt to do that by now. I hope any aliens discovering our planet would do the same.Why is it immoral for humans to eat a cow, but not for a lion to do the same?Virtually all animals survive by eating other lifeforms. Why does it become immoral for us to eat other animals just because we have achieved a certain level of sentience? Eating other animals is absolutely normal. And it is widely considered by evolutionary biologists that we wouldn't have achieved our level of sentience had we not developed a taste for meat and benefited from its high energy value. Eating meat is being human, it is not inhumane.

Not all of us certainly. But I think most educated people understand how we have buggered up many ecologies. I cannot picture us discovering life on another planet and just charging in and screwing everything up. I think the scientists who would plan such a mission would have enough awareness of the kind of ecological damage we can cause, and I would imagine it's likely that any advanced aliens would have the same. Of course, short-term greed and desperation could overrule all that, but I think a long-term sensible view would be not to interfere directly in another ecological system. But you were suggesting that as it would instinctively seem immoral for a more intelligent alien race to eat us humans, it is equally immoral for us to eat less intelligent animals. There is no such thing in my view as a "moral right". Making some kind of decision in any circumstance is necessary and unavoildable. We have to make all kinds of decisions all the time in order to do anything at all. The aliens will make a decision. What reasoning lies behind their decision is theirs. It's the aliens' decision whether or not to farm and eat us, not ours. It is up to us to decide how we might react to their decision. I don't think a gazelle could say that the lion is morally wrong for trying to eat it. All the gazelle wants to do is try and survive, just like the lion. OK. But we don't need to wait for aliens for us to become the "eaten". Is it immoral for a shark or a lion or a crocodile to eat a human? How does the level of intelligence/sentience of a species affect whether or not it is "right" to eat another species? If it is considered wrong for us to eat other animals, presumably it is also wrong for us to allow other animals to eat other animals? It must be wrong to keep a pet cat and feed it meat. It must be wrong to allow lions to carry on eating gazelles.

Hi StragglerSorry, I didn't see your message 34 before I submitted my message 35. You raise a very good point. Objectively, in one sense at least, I think you are correct in proposing that it is inconsistent to allow testing on chimpanzees but not on human babies, when the chimpanzees may have a higher level of sentience.I wonder how often it is asked by anyone in a position of power to determine such things, why certain testing on animals such as chimpanzees is legal and acceptable, but not on humans. What I mean is, is sentience always the main argument? Do those allowing such experiments, and those carrying them out, always consider or remember what the justification was?I think most people hate to see testing on animals, just as many if not most people even dislike the idea of animals being killed to be eaten. But most of us are willing to turn a blind eye to these uncomfortable ideas. We like the medicines and cosmetics that come from the testing, and we like our steaks.I think it is essentially a subjective, instinctive and selfish decision that our own species is simply more important than other species. But if we didn't have this ability to override our conflicting sensibilities, would we have survived as a species, and could we continue to survive?The same could be said for your aliens. If they have to wander around the universe looking for food, then that's what they have to do to survive, whether they like the idea of eating us or not.If the day ever comes when the human species or an alien species considers that it is not superior to other species, would that not be the first day of its path to extinction?

Hi StragglerFirst, just an observation that there are a lot of parallels between the moral issues of this topic and the Neanderthal and Abortion topics! I don't see it like that. We don't consider it immoral for a lion or shark to eat a human. We understand it is their nature, their instincts. If we were visited by aliens who wanted to eat us, then that would be part of their nature. I don't think we'd view them as immoral. We'd just view them as a new natural predator that had instincts to eat us.I accept that we may be confused by the fact that they are intelligent enough to navigate the universe and yet appear to be lacking the same kind of empathy that we have towards other sentient species. In fact, I find it hard to imagine how such a technologically sophisticated species could evolve without having developed the kind of empathy that we have. That's why I believe this is probably only a hypothetical case.I understand your point about the inconsistency of our moral outlook at being outraged by these hypothetical aliens, while not being outraged by our own behaviour towards other species. I think the reason is a kind of overlap of instinctive emotions. Our empathy towards other intelligent animals exists as a by-product of having evolved a useful empathy towards individuals of our own species. The instinctive empathy we have towards each other is so strong it kind of overshoots itself to affect the way we regard other species. It has to do this to be a very real and strong instinct. Yet, this is in conflict with our desire to eat or even experiment on other animals for our own benefit. Both instincts (the empathy instinct and the eat/experiment-to-survive instinct) overlap into an area of conflict with each other. This is why we have this range of views where some humans have no qualms about how they treat animals, some are radical animal rights activists, and most of us are probably caught somewhere in the middle, which is why you have this dilemma.

Hi Hyroglyphx Straggler was looking for an answer to what he said appeared objectively to be an inconsistency. I have given what I hope, whether right or wrong, is a very objective explanation. I realise that might make people uncomfortable, but I'm just attempting to look at this in a very honest and frank way. The fact that I can see a "cold, clinical, sterile" objective explanation to Straggler's question doesn't change the fact that I would find your suggested scenario horrific and would react with the same kind of emotion most people would in such a situation. I have a natural empathy to the suffering of many other animals. I think that's the interesting point - where do you draw the line?I think we have a natural tendency to empathise with other species that appear to be most similar to us. Some of us will only extend that to a select few intelligent species; others will extend it to all mammals; others again may even extend it to reptiles and fish. I, for one, don't think I'd be nearly as horrified at seeing a large snake or aligator slit open in front of me as I would if it were a dog. Yet, there's no reason to suppose the reptile wouldn't feel as much distress and pain. And I certainly have few qualms at all about cutting a live insect in half, although I've no idea how much pain and distress that may cause it.I don't think there is an absolute objective moral answer to this question. Except maybe the tree hugging moonbats have the most objective and consistent moral view!

---

This is "Lambing Live"! - Kate Humble

Hi BluejayAlways up with the lark and ever vigilant! I think I see what you mean and accept I missed a part of Straggler's point. But Straggler did use the example of chimpanzees and suggest that if we expected to be well-treated by an alien species with a level of sentience higher than our own and equivalent to the difference between us and chimpanzees, then logically we should in turn treat chimpanzees the same way.I'd now ask what exactly do we mean by a "sentient" species? Is there a sentient cut-off point? To to be consistent and objective do we have to apply the same level of empathy and care towards all other living species along the gradual scale of sentience? Is there a big gap somewhere on that scale where you can say "species x is clearly sentient enough to deserve equality with humans, but species y clearly falls below that line and therefore is fair game"?

I think we see them as innocent and pure because we consider other species act purely on instinct, without really knowing or thinking about what they do. Many if not most of us consider that a shark is a cold killing machine, yet we don't consider it immoral or evil. It's just doing the only thing it knows to do. Whereas humans have the mental capacity to analyse their behaviour. This capacity we have for cognitive, reasoned thought in addition to our instincts could be another explanation for our dilemma.But why some of us are then inclined to kill other humans or animals for the "fun" of it, as in your examples, I have no idea on that. Are there any "lesser" animals that do similar things?I saw a pretty shocking report the other weekExposed: Dark secret of the farm where tigers' bodies are plundered to make 185 wine | Daily Mail Onlineabout a factory in China that contains 1500 tigers (apparently half the number that now live in the wild). Apparently they are farmed so that their bones can be ground down to make Tiger Wine!?! I hope that Tiger Beer doesn't come from the same source!If some visiting aliens consider us humans to be a fine vintage, I guess we deserve all we get.

Hi Bluejay If I had a penny for every time I heard someone say those words...

Hi Pseudonym & welcome Straggler raised a very interesting topic and I think it exposes a number of things.On the face of it, it is certainly correct that if we consider it immoral for another sentient species (aliens) to eat us humans, then it is objectively inconsistent for us as sentient beings to eat other species.But as Hooah says, we've become too cissified. We still eat meat, and it is absolutely normal for us as a species from this planet to eat meat.The morality that we show towards other species is very subjective. I am horrified at the existence of a tiger farm in China. But I am not horrified at all when I drive past local pig farms. Yet pigs are considered to be very intelligent animials, probably more intelligent than tigers or any other cats. I would probably be horried to see a pig slaughtered though (because I never have), and I would definitely be horriried to see emaciated pigs kept in poor condition. It's almost entirely cultural upbringing that fine-tunes these specific moral views.I don't believe in absolute morality, which is why I think we all set our own subjective level on this issue. In my opinion, that level is mostly determined by cultural upbringing and by the extent to which conflicting instincts (such as the instinct to eat vs the instinct to care) interact within each individual.

The fact that something is "normal" does not necessarily mean it is a self perpetuating state and we don't have a choice in whether or not we do it. Most of us now have the choice whether or not to eat meat, just as we have a choice whether or not to live in a cave. (Theoretically at least - it probably wouldn't be very easy for us to all go back to the caves!)I say it is "normal" to underline the fact that it is natural and therefore not absolutely morally wrong to eat meat. If it wasn't morally wrong for us to eat meat in the past, can it still be morally wrong for us to do the same today? That raises another interesting question: was there anything else in our past behaviour that we could say was morally right then, but is morally wrong now? I don't agree with this at all. I don't think many people eat meat because they think they have to or because they think killing animals is wrong and don't want to admit it. They do it because it's part of their culture, it's habit, they enjoy it, and they may not know how to switch to a satisfactory vegetarian diet.Going back to the point I have made a few times about the conflict of instincts, in particular the conflict between our caring instinct and our need to kill/eat instincts, I would propose that we are all pretty much born with the same instincts, but those instincts can develop and be made stronger through usage (just like other mental or physical capacities). So someone who is brought up on a farm or in a society where animals are regularly killed will have a stronger instinct to kill animals and eat meat than someone who has always lived in a city and never even seen something killed. Similarly, someone who has made a lot of use of their caring instincts (e.g. a parent or social worker) will have much stronger caring instincts. The more someone's caring instincts are developed and the less their killing instincts are developed, the more likely it is that they will be opposed to eating meat.I wonder if anyone knows if any research has been done on this.

A misunderstanding, I think. I was making it clear that we don't just perpetuate eating meat because it is normal, rather it is normal and we have the choice whether or not to do it. Obviously we have changed our moral outlook over time. What I mean is that looking back I don't think many would argue that it was morally wrong for our ancestors to eat meat, but some would seem to suggest that it is now morally wrong to eat meat. That is different to the way we look back at how women and different races were treated in the past (and still are in many places). Looking back we consider that it was just as morally wrong for our ancestors to treat women and different races as inferior as it would be for us to do so today.So my point is why is it morally OK for our ancestors to have eaten meat in the past but not morally OK for us to do so today?Do you agree it was morally OK to eat meat in the past? If so, what have we suddenly become aware of that makes it immoral to do so today? Sorry to say but that really makes no sense at all. If anyone decides for any reason that they aren't happy eating meat, they can just stop doing it. Who would carry on eating meat if they didn't enjoy it and purely to kid themselves or others that they thought it was morally acceptable, when in reality they thought otherwise?It's true that people, including myself, don't like to consider the slaughtering when we eat meat. But that's easily explained by modern culture and the conflict of instincts (caring vs killing) that I have already proposed.

Hi PseudoLike Bluejay I certainly don't think you're being deliberately dishonest, but I think your arguments sound a bit confused. If so, that's fine. I think most of us are probably thinking out loud on this issue to some extent. If you accept that by nature we are omnivores, why do you think it was morally wrong for our ancestors to have eaten meat?Do you think it is morally wrong for all omnivores to eat meat?If we decide to stop ourselves eating meat, should we not logically also stop all other omnivores and carnivores from eating meat too? If we're going to carry on producing meat to feed our cats and dogs, as well as animals in zoos, safari parks, etc, what difference does it make if we eat the meat as well?What are we actually concerned about? Are we concerned about animals dying to become food? If so, we must surely do all we can to stop any animal being eaten by any other animal. Or are we just concerned about our sensibilities? If so, I don't accept that as a moral reason to stop eating meat, but just a matter of personal choice. I presume that "kill bear or die" in this context means "kill or be killed" not "kill to eat to survive". The moral considerations you list after that are all reasonable ones for not killing the bear, but have nothing to do with a desire to eat it, so not really relevant to this topic.

Except in the case where laws are applied to enforce the moral judgement of the majority and/or government.I fully respect your own decision not to eat meat, primarily because it has no effect on me or others, so it's of no concern to me. No. I do not wish to kill an animal from a rare species so that I can eat it, nor do I wish for animals to suffer in poor conditions so that I can eat them. I would only consider that justifiable in a life or death situation - where there was no other option. Needless suffering is...well...needless, and therefore not justifiable.I admit that I've lost track of how we got to this point in the debate. I would just like to ask you one fundamental point, though, which I don't think you've answered.We have obviously both made our own choice on this matter, but is there is a fundamental objective reason you (or anyone else) may have for no human being morally justified in eating meat?

Hi PseudonymIt's not my intention to badger you or push you into arguing from a position that is not yours. If it seems like I've been doing that, then I apologise.However, I am genuinely interested to know if there is a good moral reason not to eat meat, regardless of other side-issues such as the rarity or general treatment of the animals.I know there are many examples of farmed animals being very poorly treated during their lives, and wild animals being hunted to near or actual extinction. I agree that it is morally wrong to eat meat that encourages those activities.But is there a moral reason not to eat meat if the farmed animals are very well treated, or where wild animals are hunted in a sustainable manner?If that's not something you care to consider or explain, then fair enough, but I am genuinely interested in finding out if there is an answer to that. I don't think anyone has directly responded on that point.

Hi Taq I had already mentioned that the OP was probably only hypothetical for this very reason.However, even though it may only ever be hypothetical, I still think it throws an interesting perspective on how we farm animals. To make this conclusion we really need to establish in what way they are "enlightened/advanced" and how that means eating us or meat in general is not be immoral. Again, it has yet to be defined why eating meat is immoral or un-enlightened.I think it is important to establish whether or not eating meat is immoral, period, in order to fully contemplate the OP.I note that, in his OP, Straggler didn't simply mention eating meat, but referred to a whole range of activities relating to the way we treat animals - "intense meat farming, milk extraction, slave labour, conducting experiments, testing cosmetics etc. etc.". We've tended to concentrate on eating meat in this debate but I don't think this is wrong. It's fair to consider each issue independently.