Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights

Would you care to mention any? Cause I can't think of (good) ones.

Hey, Huntard One reason in support of a meatless diet is the ability to feed a greater proportion of the human population. (Meatless) Vegetarians are primary consumers, consuming a plant-based diet. Eating corn-fed beef, for example, lifts us to secondary consumers; the cattle eat the plants, mostly corn, and we, in turn, eat the cattle.In so doing, we lose ~90% of the energy available to us in the lower trophic level, as primary consumers. Edited by BMG, : Forgot a greeting.

That is assuming you are trying to get corn in your diet through the cow. Who does that, though? No one eats beef to retrieve the nutrients from what the cow ate. If they wanted corn, they would eat it directly. If they want protein, they'll eat the cow.The only relevance a good diet for the cow makes in relation to the consumer is a healthy cow in which to consume.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Hey, Hyro I mentioned this was a "generalized model" before removing it after an edit: It appears I should have left it in.Corn was used more as a representative of plants- autotrophs/producers, a trophic level too low for us to attain. The point is that by choosing to subsist on a diet from a lower trophic level, more energy is available to us all.Note: I cannot stress enough what Pseudonym has mentioned previously: I don't think everyone must act in accordance with my belief: I can only decide, to a certain extent, what actions I will undertake, and which ones from which I'll refrain.Edited by BMG, : Forgot greeting, again.

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.

This conversation has taken an interesting tack. If we assume, for the moment, that it is immoral to eat meat when we could eat plant matter without suffering any nutritional diseases then how does this relate to the OP?I see three different situtations.1. If we also assume that the visiting alien race is more enlightened than us AND is much more technologically advanced then we would not have to worry about them eating us. In fact, they may have already figured out a way to produce their food abiotically negating the use of even plant derived food.OR . . .2. If we are going to argue that this enlightened, advanced race still does eat meat then perhaps eating meat is not immoral afterall?OR. . .3. Eating meat is immoral. If these aliens want to eat us, and we consider carnivory to be a moral dilemma at worst and wrong at best, this would make us into the more enlightened race, would it not?So perhaps we should be asking how we would justify our carnivory to a race of aliens who is not as enlightened as we are.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

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.

I agree. This would seem to breakdown into a debate over moral relativism vs. objective morality. If we are going to extend this to alien races then we would also need to figure out how much of our morality is influenced by biology and how much is influenced by objectivity and reason.I don't want to call this a semantic argument, but it is unavoidable. When we say that someone is enlightened it is always in reference to our own sense of morality and reasoning. Can we extend such a description to an alien race that does not share our morality and reasoning? Can we call a race "enlightened" if they are incapable of empathy?

Hi, Taq. I'd like to explore this idea a bit, starting from this quote: What if the aliens cannot eat plant matter without suffering any nutritional diseases?We meat-eating humans eat meat because we obviously have no moral center.But, obligate-carnivorous aliens would eat meat because they have to in order to survive. So, for them, the morality is directly a question of whether animals are their moral equivalents, and the answer is obviously going to be, "No." Why should we expect that to be any different?I suppose advanced alien carnivores could subsist on in vitro meat or use genetic engineering to make themselves capable of subsisting on a morally-acceptable diet, but is this really a realistic expectation? Would we be willing to undergo such dramatic alterations to ourselves or our way of life in order to avoid consuming something with a central nervous system? I very strongly doubt it.-----Also, there is the possibility that the aliens' world does not contain meaningfully distinguishable "plants" and "animals." How would such aliens define "meat" and "vegetable," and how would they translate the distinction we make there into their moral system?I'm convinced that any alleged moral undertones of this discussion are wholly subjective, probably oversimplified, and not helpful in predicting how aliens will or should behave toward us.

---

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

None. What they'd be doing wouldn't be morally wrong if what we're doing isn't. Lions eat dear, people eat cows... Aliens eat people.

Hi JUC, You didn't ask me, but I'm going to butt in anyway This question is one of those squicky ones which we're going to find ourselves thinking about once we finally get enough enlightenment together to stop killing each other over race, colour, creed or sexuality and other personal inclinations that aren't immediately (self-)destructive.(Science fiction) authors have touched on such things for more than a hundred years, and indeed it has coloured our perceptions (animals rights, the green movement). From selling organs as an alternative to prostitution, to renting out a womb for some other couple's sperm and egg, to donating eggs or sperm for a gay couple to supply the other half and have offspring, there's a lot of topics left to hammer out that, quite simply, morality will have to adapt to.There was the german cannibal who killed and ate a willing victim - and I believe there was a japanese one too, probably more - if you think about it (and Douglas Adams did), why should we think killing dumb beasts for food is right when we think that killing intelligent animals that can give their consent to it wrong?If you're a christian, and you get on the first warp-capable ship for alpha centauri and start plugging away at the natives and chowing down (after all, your god made the entire universe JUST for you, right?), why SHOULD you care if the natives are intelligent? they are by definition animals and NOT human, so they should have no innate rights.If we ignore the whole "where does morality come from" question, it gets a bit easier - the range must fall between "depriving another thinking, feeling creature of life is not right, under any circumstances" and "might makes right".I'm a helpless techno-utopian, so I firmly believe than when we CAN do away with farming animals for skin, bone, meat, organs and other biproducts, we SHOULD. We should move our heavy industry off of the Earth and let it be fallow, we should move our population off Earth or live with zero negative impact and we shouldn't eat anything with a nervous-system because we have the brains to do otherwise, and therefore the responsibility to do so. Bacteria and plants don't count. Vat-grown meat doesn't count. If we could grow cows without a brain, THAT wouldn't count.Until we can do that, we should hope that no "christian" aliens find us and decide that since we're not kanomits that we are animals and therefore are on the menu.Remember, it's a cook book! A COOK BOOK!

Then it kind of shoots a hole in the idea that they are more technologically advanced than us. Our species is capable of genetically modifying plant species to better fit our dietary needs. Surely an alien species light years more advanced than us would be capable of this. But, assuming they have not for the sake of argument . . . Then the question comes back to: Would humans be their moral equivalent? In human philosophy a moral agent is not defined by their biology. Modern philosophers have often posed questions dealing with the possibility of self-aware computer program, as one example. I don't see why unicellular organisms (something like algae or yeast) could not be genetically modified to supply the needed nutrients. There are many options short of modifying your own species to eat something other than meat from an animal with a well developed CNS. I don't think it is about plant v. animal. We would would consider eating sponges (if they were edible) the same as eating corn even though sponges are animals. Our ethical consideration seems to be centered around a well developed nervous system.At the same time, we are biased towards species that feel pain like we do. One could argue that plants experience "pain", but in a way that is so foreign to us that we discount it. I don't think they are wholly subjective. We have become "enlightened" enough that we are able to separate morality from biology. We are still greatly influenced by biology, but I do believe we have begun to separate our morality from our instincts. This has often been the subject of science fiction, and had overtones in the recent film Avatar. Asimov's Foundation series is focused on self-aware robots as moral agents.I also see another possibility, one that can be seen in our own species. As our technology advances it allows us to separate our decisions from the outcome of those decisions. Bill Maher was publically chastised a few years ago for bringing this to light. He said that the hijackers on 9/11 were braver than a kid who launches cruise missle on a Navy destroyer by pushing a button. While this is certainly a tasteless comment it does hold a kernel of truth. As others have mentioned above our methods for bringing meat to market allow people to go their whole lives without ever seeing an animal slaughtered, or even partially processed for that matter.Is this a path that other species would follow? Quite possibly. Perhaps our greatest concern should be autonomous alien technology landing on our planet. This technology would terraform our planet to meet the needs of the alien species even if it meant the extinction of our species. This technology would also allow the alien species to distant themselves from ethical considerations in the same way that pushing a button to launch a cruise missle distances the Navy ensign from seeing people blown apart.

Hi, Taq. Why stop there, then?If they really are more advanced or enlightened than us, shouldn’t we expect them to realize that subjective, arbitrary criteria---such as the presence of a central nervous system---are not a morally appropriate system of determining what can be killed and what cannot be? Shouldn’t we expect them to be more objective than that?Why don’t we assume that technologically advanced aliens would modify themselves to get their energy from photosynthesis, in order to prevent the destruction of habitats required by organisms with central nervous systems to survive to grow crops? Why don’t we assume they will also dramatically reduce their population, and enforce a zero-growth strategy, in order to ensure that there is enough space for all organisms with central nervous systems to make a home? Why don’t we assume that they will live in domes or in orbital habitats, so that they don’t accidentally step on an organism with a central nervous system? Better yet, why don’t we assume that they will modify all organisms with central nervous systems so that they can get their energy from photosynthesis, so nothing has to be killed for any reason?If they have the technological ability to do so, don’t they also have the moral imperative to do so? And, shouldn't they also recognize this moral imperative?

---

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

Hi greyseal Feel free to butt in any time. Why is it wrong to kill an intelligent animal that gives its consent? You've just given a perfect example of religious dogma that is based on insubstantial bollocks. On the question of pure principle, I would opt for "might makes right" and ignore anthing to the left of that position. Right from the start this debate has been full of presumptions that eating meat (whether of an intelligent animal or a stupid one) must be immoral/wrong, without any clear attempt to explain why. Can you offer any straightforward explanation for why may be wrong?My own opinion is simply that many people are squeamish about killing and eating animals due to their modern upbringing. Those people have the choice not to eat meat, and that's absolutely fine, but I just can't see an objective reason to stop others eating meat on a point of pure principle.

The whole argument seems to be centered around whether or not a well developed central nervous system is subjective or arbitrary. The difference being that they, unlike "animals", make these choices based on their own morality. Does a shark stop to think about the pain it causes? Do sharks have a moral code? Are they moral agents? Are basking sharks a result of morally conflicted sharks opting for a more vegetarian lifestyle? Wouldn't you need to ask their permission first?