Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights

I said in the woods. I understand the purpose of not having shit flowing in the streets. I thought they were the same thing...sorry.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair

Sorry for the late replies, but you all raised some very interesting points and I wanted to make sure I had the time to give them the consideration they deserved...and I went and had a nap (I blame my age). I agree that by nature we are omnivores. But we are continually moving beyond our base nature.
Our intelligence (and our technology) adds a very real complication to everything we do.
No longer are we stuck in the 'survive + reproduce' cycle - instead we have musicians, painters, people that choose to not have children, etc.
This means we now have the ability to change our behaviour to something not predetermined by our ancestry.Since we have the options to do far more things now (and we know more things too) - that, in turn, means that our judgement has to be far more sophisticated too.Choosing how we behave gets more complicated the more we develop.
A long time ago is was simply: "Kill bear or die.".
Now it is: "Is it an endangered species? Can we tranquilise the bear? Can we get in our car and ignore it? Can we make money selling its fur? Do I have a personal vendetta against bears?, etc."

Of course there are certain animals that we have no business eating. To echo some of what Jazz said, we ahve domesticated groups of animals for the purpose of consumption, just as we have domesticated animals for the purpose of labor (Mules). Would there be cattle if it weren't for us?I'm all for animal conservation for extinct/exotic/rare animals. There are certain niches that need to be filled for certain ecosystems to be successful and we chouldn't screw with that.Now, back to my steak......

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair

In the primordial back of my mind I remembered an old Analog Magazine story, called "Green-eyed Lady, Laughing Lady". After extensive trips to Google, I found it in the March 1st, 1982 issue, which is currently buried behind 28 years of sedimentary junk in my older son's room. It was written by Allison Tellure. Here is the cover:Home Page (Index)Basically there are these intelligent beetles on this planet. They are led by this old female beetle who has green eyes and hence the title. There also happens to be a nearby huge creature, called Yd, in the waters surrounding their coastal town who is very intelligent and is a respected member of their society (although the cover drawing certain portrays a completely different sort of relationship). When the leader is looking for advice, she goes to talk to Yd. Here is the amazing thing - Yd eats very old beetles and immediately retains each one's knowledge and thus over the years has become a resource of information. When the leader beetle gets too old she knows, just like all the other leaders before her, that the correct thing to do, before she dies elsewhere, is to jump into Yd's mouth and get eaten in order to preserve everything she has learned. Yd has grown attached to this beetle and also knows he must do the task before him. Sort of poignant story. Dont know about that artwork though...you can't judge a book by it's cover!

Yes, we have the ability to sustain ourselves without meat. I agree that this wasn't always the case (if you go back far enough).
It is unclear what proportion of early hunter/gatherer's diet was meat - some say a lot, some say not much.
But since the introduction of agriculture meat has often been a rare luxury for all but the rich. (Just to clarify: when I used the word 'able' I meant 'psychologically able' not 'skilled'.)
I expect that the people you describe as unable/unwilling to grow their own crops are limited by knowledge and/or inclination - not by an actual aversion to farming.
The amount of people psychologically able to become nurses/doctors/surgeons far surpasses the amount of people able to work in abattoirs.
I agree that this is mostly due to personality and culture - which brings us back to mores and morals. But they do not intend for those horrific things to occur to them, sometimes to the point of denying that those things are even possible.
Even in war, people have to be psychologically trained (arguably brainwashed) to actually go fight.
But, after training, many soldiers still suffer from PTSD. I used the word 'horrific' on purpose. To see the reaction of people when faced with killing an animal, the best word I could find was 'horror' - "An intense, painful feeling of repugnance". I have never seen laziness cause that kind of reaction - not even in teenagers. You say that there are not lots of reasons to stop eating meat and then you start listing them. And those reasons are 'obvious directives'.
There are more reasons if you want them (e.g. Greenhouse gas emission from livestock, higher water consumption by livestock, overuse of antibiotics in cattle, etc.)

Sorry.
I couldn't resist. (Bolding is mine!)

OK. I was a bit pushed for time when I replied. That is why I posted a simplistic (as stated) answer.But I can see by your post that you are here to fight and insult.
Accusing me of lying and deception is unjustified and wrong.
If that is your idea of a discussion then I end it here, as I am not willing to play that game.

To quote that most famous of logisticians:
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Oops! I meant endangered. Thanks for pointing that out.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair

Hi, Pseudonym. Maybe it was a little pointed, but I didn't intend it that way. I have noticed a rather higher measure of irritation in my posts this week (perhaps I should take a break). But, in all honesty, I didn't intend for this to sound so pointed.And I didn't accuse you of lying: I accused you of not being aware of an inconsistency in your reasoning. You say you are opposed to pain and suffering. I ask you now, sincerely: would anaesthesis satisfy you? Or would you still object to meat?Edited by Bluejay, : replace "be" with "being"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

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.

Yes, I understood you. That is why I provided 2 examples. One for 'skill' (farming) and one for 'psychology' (trauma response). Well no it doesn't. Straggler is looking for an objective moral. If there is a cultural influence, it cannot be objective.So you can have your personal moral all you want, just don't proclaim it to be universal. I don't disagree with that statement. But remember what you said? No such shift is required. We regularly condone activities for which we would not personally engage in for our direct benefit. In fact we often exalt the people willing to do them. That was my point. I never claimed that "laziness" causes that revulsion. You didn't quite get my point. I mentioned laziness to say that it isn't just "horror" that stops people from killing their own meat. You seem to casually be making that association when it is quite probable that "laziness" is just as much of a factor as to why people don't kill their own animals.Also, rather than "horror" it could just be "dirtiness" or "smelliness" that turns people off from doing the job themselves. You are using a worst case and making a broad generalization. That is a logical fallacy. Again you misunderstand. I said there MAY BE good reasons to REDUCE our intake of meat. There are environmental reasons to do this which is a very objective criteria. That is a far cry from the emotional moralizing that you have been doing.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This discussion has drifted a long way from my actual proposition.
Anyhoo...A little clarification:
My morals guide me and only me. I do not use them to direct the behaviour of others.
Morals tend to be 'black and white' whereas life is mainly grey. This is why my morals are a guide and not a law.
They can occasionally conflict. This conflict often leads to my morals being changed.
I am also open to new information which can also lead to changes. This question IMO is almost meaningless. Unfortunately, rather than just say "this question is almost meaningless" - I tried to answer it by attempting to put myself 'in their shoes'.
This has resulted in us discussing a worthless answer to a meaningless question. I'll be more careful in future. If they have the capacity to have morals, then you had best ask them.
If you are asking me if I think it is morally wrong for me to eat meat, then the answer is yes. That logic only works if you think that our own morals overrides all others' morals (or lack of) - which I don't. Morals are "a matter of personal choice".
We are free to use our sensibilities to judge our own actions as we deem fit. Are you saying that if you had the desire to eat the bear, then you would ignore all other considerations (moral and otherwise) and just kill it?
Are you saying that if your actions are allowed by one of your morals (e.g. eating meat is OK) then any 'counter-morals' (e.g. not killing a rare species) are ignored?

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?

So you want me to identify a single 'moral law' that everyone applies to themselves?
Without asking everyone, I couldn't possibly answer that.
Or do you think I should be making moral decisions for them?There are few reasons to eat meat and many reasons to stop.
But what you actually do (or consider moral) is something you have to decide for yourself.