Not to mention that the birth process itself is none too comfy for either party. Collarbones are frequently fractured and shoulders disolcated in newborns during the birth process.

Could meat be gradually phased out?

I rather doubt it - the economic dislocations associated with business declines are almost always rapid and brutal at the end. Most food businesses have tiny profit margins and hence would be especially vulnerable to downturns. As the businesses fail one-by-one and the cows are abandoned, the remaining animals would not fare well - especially those bred for docility. If we created them, we ought to keep them, rather than leave them defenseless.

Likewise, the legal problem of reducing/banning meat-eating would most likely call for a sudden dislocation like we have in our anti-narcotic laws: it is hard to craft a law that gradually and progressively limits meat-eating (or narcotic abuse) but easy to craft a law that bans them - and just imagine how brutal cow-trafficking would become (to both cows and humans) if it were made into an illegal vice rather than a legit industry.

As to the brutality of slaughterhouses:

This may be an area where pain and suffering could be eased further, and they ARE being eased further as our technology improves. A recent article in Scientific American detailed the efforts of an Asperger's Syndrome sufferer to use his disability to design new and more cow-friendly processing facilities - that article can be purchased on-line, I think.

As to the "need" to eat meat:

Putting aside for a moment the problems many IBS and UC sufferers would have on a veggie diet, one does not have to have a "need", per se, to ethically justify one's actions. For example, one may also act out of "comparative advantage": the justification that one's actions lead to improvements over an alternative action. The case of eating cows is a win-win - we eat the meat, and the cows get improvements in food, medicine, safety from predation and species survival.

As to the question of voluntary domestication and docility:

Only a handful species have been domesticated, and in every case, without the cooperation of the animals, the domestication would have failed. Some species are too violent in captivity; others become TOO docile (they fail to reproduce in captivity). Occasionally some domesticated animals return to a feral state - wild horses in the Americas devolved from domesticated European stock; dingoes in Australia were introduced to predate hares (also artificially introduced), and feral housecats are just about everywhere. These facts alone suggest that animal may be making choices in the matter.

Rhaazz, I believe you are caught on the horns of a dilemma, here - if those animals are not sentient (NOT making a choice), then by your own standards, eating them ought to be ok. If those animals are sentient, then we could not have domesticated them without their sentient consent - so again, eating them ought to be ok. And if their docility is our engineered creation, then they are ours to do with as we would: either preserve and protect, if we are good, or to free and destroy, because their extinction would quickly follow their liberation.

What do the cows (and humans, and ET's) really want?

No species seeks it's own extinction - each seeks first and foremost to leave viable progeny - to preserve itself. Members of a species do this even when reproduction is painful and dangerous; they do this when food, water and space are limited. (Those that don't, die off.) Species self-survival is the one ethical good that is universal and free of all cultural colors and species boundaries - the only culture it comes from is the culture of biological life.

One may reasonably argue, then, that above avoiding personal pain, and beyond avoiding personal death, cows value species survival, and to the extent that their domestication serves this end, they ought to be cool with it - and we should be cool with it, too.

whether an animal is domesticated or not, whether they are sentient or not, etc., etc., makes no difference. we have no right to take the life of another animal. once again, these arguments are all rationalizations so one does not feel guilty doing something that they know deep down is wrong. i hope we all evolve from eating meat some day, and i believe our species will do that.

gotbeer, Were you subjected to horrible violent sexual abuse as a child? Where did you get the notion that "the power to harm other means that one has the right to harm"? You sound like one of those psychopaths who tortured animals as a child.

You really scare me -- if you believe the things you ttype.

Oh -- and gotbeer? Could you please look up the meaning of "sentient"?

Thanks.

I'm sure you'll be glad to learn that you were completely mistaken in your guess at what the word meant.

Good luck in learning the rudiments of logic and in expanding your vocabulary. And I wish you even better luck in learning the basic rudimentary equipment of human morality.

Get some therapy -- FAST.

If we try to break it down to eating living things we could probably make the same arguments for plants. Do plants not have the same "right" to exist as humans according to the lving being ideal? A very, very short list is the number of types of animals that do not consume another at some point.

Humans, on the basis of anatomical structure, are most likely omnivores.

hi pltry,
what i said was that "we have no right to take the life of another animal."

many attempt to use the plants argument, but i don't buy it. it has some life attributes in that they can reproduce other plants, etc. but they have no brain, no ability to feel pain, or any other emotion. it is not a life in the sense that an animal is a life. if we want to get ridiculous, we could start saying that a mountain is a life form, because it grows larger, and can change size.

even if the list of the animals that do not consume another at some point was zero, that is no basis for whether the action is right or wrong.

but there are quite a few animals that only eat vegetation.

i don't doubt that we have eaten meat in the past. whether it was necessary in the past to sustain life may not be ever entirely known for sure, but it is NOT NECESSARY today.

and 99% of the meat eaten comes from the supermarket, so it is not even a good nutritional food, with all the saturated fat, excess hormones, and god knows what else it was fed, to get it fat. most cases of food poisoning from restaurants always involves some sort of animal flesh.

eating meat today is simply something that people do because they enjoy the taste, and recite silly rationalizations that really make them sound SILLY. it reminds me of the child, with his teeth covered with chocolate, trying to deny he ate the last of the cookies. LOL.

I have yet to hear anything scientifically-based from you. You’re trying to sound as if you really know what you’re talking about, but in the end, you are just arguing issues from an emotional basis and then putting a moral judgment on people. When someone does not agree with you even on scientific basis and you call it silly rationalization. Again, I hear no science. So let's be clear and call it exactly as it is, shall we?

As to quite a few animals that are strict vegetarian, that is true actually for a rather small minority of animals. Even plant consuming primates are known to eat insects and other small animals on occasion. Many species of birds consume berries and other plant life usually covered in insects…there are even some animal studies to show that they are visually aware of the small life forms crawling around on them when they eat them. The point is in layman’s terms that even some previously classified vegetarian animals actually have diets that are not 100% plant based.

I have addressed your issues with saturated fat before.

You might do some research into plant physiology about the pain perception aspect.

It's interesting to me how with the successes of low carb diets for both health reasons and weight loss purposes, the arguments against this practice are getting more and more idealized and less tangible/concrete in the absence of scientifically verifiable data with which to argue.

Don’t knock the supermarkets so hard…if it weren’t for them you would not likely be vegetarian as the amount of time, effort and storage space required to keep enough vegetables on hand for a vegetarian family is rather immense.

killing an animal is a moral issue, so it can not be argued scientifically. you guys are making rationalizations about why it is okay to kill an animal, because you are not willing to give it up. that is the whole crux of the situation, which you guys are not willing to admit. until you do so, i will continue to throw the truth right in your faces. KILLING AN ANIMAL IS NOT MORALLY OKAY. PERIOD. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT IT.

we have both ADDRESSED the issue about saturated fat. come back in 30 years when you have some long-term results. then we can talk - assuming that you have not died from cardiovascular disease, in the meantime.

The "amount of time, effort and storage space required to keep enough vegetables on hand for a vegetarian family is rather immense."



Yeah, all that tofu is pushing us out of our house! Eeeek!

Seriously, pltrygeist, I cannot believe that you view the killing of plants as the ethical equivalent of killing an animal.

If I were to go over to your house and do two things, (1) torture your dog, and (2) pick one of your flowers,

would you view them as morally equivalent?

The issue here, for me, isn't "science," but morality.

Ethical vegetarianism -- at least for me -- is based on the following assumptions:

1. My experience of pain derives from my possession of a central nervous system and a brain. (Understand here that when we talk about "sentient beings," "sentience" means capacity for pleasue and pain. "Sentience" does NOT mean, as it is often misunderstood to mean, "capacity for thought or choice.")

2. Because I am sentient, I wish to avoid unnecesary pain. I also wish to delay my death.

3. Those who inflict unnecessary pain and death on me would be behaving unethically because they would be harming me unnecessarily.

(Understand here, the most important assumption is that "unnecessary harm = unethical.")

4. I assume that nonhuman animals possessed of similar central nervous systems also wish to avoid unnecessary pain and death.

5. Therefore, it is unethical for me to inflict unnecesary pain and death on nonhuman animals.

I don't KNOW any of this for sure. I am ASSUMING that animals feel pain, and I am ASSUMING that they do not want to be killed.

These assumptions are consistent with my observations of animal behavior.

But hey, who can really say? Maybe gotbeer is right -- maybe animals WANT to be killed for our dining pleasure.

I think that gotbeer is insane and he frightens me (he LIKES the idea of hurting animals). I think my assumptions are by comparison sane, and reasonable.

As for plants,

(1) Human and nonhuman animals evolved to have a pain response in order to survive: pain induces them to avoid events that inflict injury, thus increasing their chances of survival.

(2) Plants do not have the same pain response because they lack the capacity to move in order to avoid injurious events.

(3) Finally, I am assuming that if plants DO have a capacity for suffering, it is not based on the possession of a central nervous system and it is not sentience as I experience it.

(4) Therefore the suffering of plants does not have the same moral implications for me that the suffering of aniimals has.

Again, these as assumptions.

But let's say that plants DO suffer when we eat them

OK, so what? The fact that SOME suffering may be inevitable does NOT justify one in inflicting MORE and UNNECESSARY suffering.

(This reminds me of gotbeer's fallacious argument: "suffering and death is unavoidable therefore I can go around and inflict more suffering and death with a clear conscience.")

No. That's not right. You cannot go and inflict unnecessary suffering and death on a human or nonhuman animal and then justify your actions by saying "well plants are hurting, too!"

Nope. Most publicized cases of food poisoning come from animal flesh (E Coli). In fact, most cases of food poisoning come from: lettuce, fruits and other veggies (Shigella) and salad dressings (Salmonella). In the vast majority of cases, the contamination is not caused from the animal per se, but from improper hygiene on the part of the preparer or improper storage or failure to maintain the food product at a temperature high enough or low enough to prevent bacterial growth.

powerful aliens come to earth. they read up on human culture. what goes around, comes around. what is good for the goose is good for the gander. do unto others what you would have others do unto you. aliens SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLY deduce that it must be okay to eat all humans that eat other animals. gymee have no one to debate with.

gymee also listen much to politicians. gymee, he smart. he know difference between scientific pseudo-babble designed to justify the unjustifiable, and REAL SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT.

HI LISA,
well i would wonder how it is that you have so much knowledge about THINGS THAT ARE NOT PUBLICIZED. i know. probably from all those studies done by low-carb supporters.

it does not matter why meat causes poisoning. i don't disagree with you that it is mostly from poor hygiene. but you will get it just the same. animal flesh rots, is host to all sorts of bacteria, etc.

i also seem to recall the same logic about guns don't kill. bullets kill. if you don't have a gun, then the bullet is useless. if you do not eat meat at a restaurant, then you don't have to worry about the hygiene of meat keeping.

i will take my chances with lettuce left unrefrigerated for a day, while you can take the meat that has been unrefrigerated for a day - there is absolutely no comparison at all.

Isn't this a side issue? I thought we were arguing ethics.

I eat meat because I have extensively studied clinical human nutrition and have found varying amounts of meat to be necessary for optimal health. Some people have greater protein requirements than me, and me more than others. For this reason, I am not willing to stop eating meat.



Nice try. The evidence is already there to support my case. When you want to debate an issue you need to remove your emotional side in order to strengthen your case. Otherwise it comes off as angry and lashing out. Actually, as a vegetarian, are you aware that strict vegetarians do not comprise the group of longest living humans?



I’m curious: where did I specifically say that this is my ethical view?

What I was saying was that a moralistic viewpoint can be taken to extremes which is where it breaks down. That’s why moralism is difficult to defend: it can go to any number of degrees depending on what side of a debate on is on.

As you understand that there are many reasons why people become vegetarian. Some people feel that it’s the most healthy approach to living longer (I disagree but it’s everyone’s right to choose), some are vegetarian on the basis of religion, some are vegetarian on the basis of geographical location/economy/etc. When someone places moral judgment on those who eat meat, then they should also appeal to those who do not eat meat for the same reasons, moralistically. You judging them morally won’t happen because their behaviour supports your cause (please understand that by the term “your” I am implying vegetarians in general, not you specifically). However, this won’t happen often.




I do not disagree that this is entirely your right, however, unlike gymeejet you do not seem to be placing moral judgment on everyone else (at least from what I’ve read so far). You have your convictions, but you are not passing judgment in the same way that he is. That’s the difference and that’s why you and I can probably debate on a much more even plane. Sorry, gymeejet, you’re too easy to pick apart when you get all emotional.




Rhazz, you said something about someone ELSE being insane?

Tell you what gymeejet, in 30 years I will come and visit you in the asylum.

But seriously, I question the truth of your last sentence in that quote.




Let us not confuse improper food prep techniques with the value of a macronutrient as a whole.



Unless particles from the tainted meat also touches your lettuce…



Does this apply to cured meat products like beef jerky? This, like many of your arguments, seems to have a sufficient dose of all-or-none absolutism.

No, gymee...because I used to work in an emergency department and the vast majority of food poisoning cases that we saw could be traced back to either salmonella (from eating contaminated egg-based salad dressings...primarily mayonnaise) and infection from restaurant salad bars. As a matter of fact, the worst case of food poisoning I ever had was from a contaminated salad bar at a restaurant.
If your organic veggies are grown with manure as fertilizer, I'd highly suggest that you wash them well before consumption as that is one the primary sources of e. coli contamination.

I'd also like to note that you never did address my question to you as to whether or not you believed God to be immoral or hypocritical.