Eating Meat, Preference or Necessity?

[AWoodside]

Many people who eat meat feel comfortable with being against things like torturing cats in microwaves. Their argument is that eating meat is a necessity, whereas torturing pets is nothing more than some sadistic way for deviants to get pleasure. This distinction seperates the cases and allows them to hold the view that while raising and slaughtering animals for consumption is ok, drowning a dog in a river because it makes you giggle is not. I'm wondering if this line of thinking is fundamentally inconsistent, at least in certain contexts.

The fact of the matter is that eating animals is no longer a necessity in the first world. It is extremely easy to be a vegetarian and be just as healthy (perhaps healthier) as your meat eating friends if you're proactive about your diet (this may require taking vitamin supplements). Sure it's a bit inconvient and may cost a bit more, but these claims are far far weaker than the claim that it's a necessity.

So if eating meat is no longer a survival necessity, what is it? It seems like nothing more than an aesthetic preference to me. I don't need to eat meat, in fact I'd probably be healthier if I didn't, I just get a lot of pleasure out of it. I'm finding it hard to condemn the behavior of someone who gets a lot of pleasure out of killing animals for fun while continuing to eat meat myself.

Any thoughts?

p.s. I suppose some poor people could still make the argument that eating meat is a survival necessity because they can't afford to be healthy otherwise... but this line of thought also seems to have problems that I'll bracket for later.

[Aniki72]

A- Let's say eating meat is wrong.
B- Let's also say that killing animals for fun is wrong too.

A < A+B and B < A+B

One wrong action is better than two wrong actions, but best avoid A AND B in my opinion!!!

If you murder someone it doesn't mean logically that afterwards you may as well become a serial killer!

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]

A- Let's say eating meat is wrong.
B- Let's also say that killing animals for fun is wrong too.

A < A+B and B < A+B

One wrong action is better than two wrong actions, but best avoid A AND B in my opinion!!!

If you murder someone it doesn't mean logically that afterwards you may as well become a serial killer!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anything I disagree with in your post, but I think I may not have clearly stated my intent. All I was saying is that I don't think it's possible to be internally consistent and believe eating animals is ok, but killing them for fun isn't. You have to think both are wrong, or neither are wrong. To be honest I'm hoping to find away I can lean towards neither being wrong... but that's probably just because i love steak so darned much.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
just as healthy (perhaps healthier) as your meat eating friends if you're proactive about your diet (this may require taking vitamin supplements).

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realise until the two threads here how vile I find the idea of "it'll be fine if you just take a few pills a day"

Its also hyprocritical if offered by someone who generally prefers 'natural' options, which I think may often be the case.

There are lots and lots of things that aren't neccesities, but life would become thoroughly unenjoyable without them.

If we follow that route then SitnHit may end up having a point.

But then if people commited suicide, could we eat them? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Would it be ok if we could find a way to breed animals with no sentience? If not, do you mind torturing of plants? Is humanity becoming fruitarian (http://www.fruitarian.com/) the ultimate goal? (according to their website it cures cancer and AIDS /images/graemlins/cool.gif )

[Phil153]

I agree you don't need meat. From the American Dietetic Association:

[ QUOTE ]
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been a vegetarian all my life, and have never taken nutritional supplements. I'm 6', 190 pounds, and lean. I played rugby and ran track through high school. I was the dux of my school, and have a IIa honors degree in math and physics. I'm now 25, in good shape and have never had a medical problem. My grandad is 84 and has been a vegetarian for 33 years, and he's also in excellent health and still works 4 days a week. He became a vegetarian after having high blood pressure, angina, and arthritis at 50, all of which a vegetarian diet (and vitamin E supplements) completely cured.

Most people who try vegetarian diets have problems because they don't understand nutrition. You need to eat wholegrains (in fact, everyone should - it'd cut cancer and and heart disease by 30%) instead of white/processed and occasionally have high mineral/vitamin foods such as nuts. That's it. Everything else is as normal.

Regarding your actual post - I don't see anything horribly wrong with eating meat, especially chicken and fish. However, higher mammals such as cows definitely have the ability to feel emotions, and they experience pain, distress and discomfort. I don't feel comfortable breeding such creatures solely for the purpose of killing and eating them - especially when they inevitably experience distress during the process. I find the idea barbaric. Is human life valuable only because it's intelligent and highly self-aware? I think human to animal awareness/emotion is far more of a continuum than many would believe.

I think cruelty to animals is different to meat eating, because torturing involves gaining pleasure solely from a creature's misery. It's a different mindset.

Sorry for the long post.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]

A- Let's say eating meat is wrong.
B- Let's also say that killing animals for fun is wrong too.

A < A+B and B < A+B

One wrong action is better than two wrong actions, but best avoid A AND B in my opinion!!!

If you murder someone it doesn't mean logically that afterwards you may as well become a serial killer!

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say killing you is right, anybody else wrong, but you is right and ok, i think you should get killed?

you can make up many lets says.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people who eat meat feel comfortable with being against things like torturing cats in microwaves. Their argument is that eating meat is a necessity, whereas torturing pets is nothing more than some sadistic way for deviants to get pleasure. This distinction seperates the cases and allows them to hold the view that while raising and slaughtering animals for consumption is ok, drowning a dog in a river because it makes you giggle is not. I'm wondering if this line of thinking is fundamentally inconsistent, at least in certain contexts.

The fact of the matter is that eating animals is no longer a necessity in the first world. It is extremely easy to be a vegetarian and be just as healthy (perhaps healthier) as your meat eating friends if you're proactive about your diet (this may require taking vitamin supplements). Sure it's a bit inconvient and may cost a bit more, but these claims are far far weaker than the claim that it's a necessity.

So if eating meat is no longer a survival necessity, what is it? It seems like nothing more than an aesthetic preference to me. I don't need to eat meat, in fact I'd probably be healthier if I didn't, I just get a lot of pleasure out of it. I'm finding it hard to condemn the behavior of someone who gets a lot of pleasure out of killing animals for fun while continuing to eat meat myself.

Any thoughts?

p.s. I suppose some poor people could still make the argument that eating meat is a survival necessity because they can't afford to be healthy otherwise... but this line of thought also seems to have problems that I'll bracket for later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people get a lot of pleasure from mass murder, but you don't find it hard to condemn that behavior, do you? You can condemn the animal-torturers because YOU think that what they are doing is wrong. Also, they're wasting tasty meat.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realise until the two threads here how vile I find the idea of "it'll be fine if you just take a few pills a day"

[/ QUOTE ]

So I'll reiterate what I said on the other thread and what Phil can attest to. Supplements are absolutely unnecessary.

[Alex-db]

I have what I think may be an interesting angle to this discussion.

Is the fact that I continue to insist that eating meat is fine comparable to insisting that believing in a traditional religion is still fine?

Are they both equally antiquated and illogical in this day and age?

If I could represent all meat eaters, and it was possible for another person to represent all religious believers, would it be a fair trade off for us both to agree to just stop it?

It is obvious to me that religion is silly, but I think eating meat is fine but cant -really- defend it, do I have a duty to play devil's advocate and try to resolve this?

[Alex-db]

My first thoughts are that the meat-eating argument is in the realm of emotion, pain, suffering and morality, and due to relativism is therefore allowed a much bigger margin of error than religion, which exists in the realm of disputing scientific and historical facts.

[madnak]

That's correct. I can't criticize anyone for saying that it's fine to eat meat.

At the same time, if you "pick and choose," then you're inconsistent and in the realm of religion. If a person derives sufficient pleasure from microwaving a cat, then I can't see how that isn't justified to the same degree that animal agriculture is. This is especially true considering that animals no longer graze on fallow land, but use up considerable amounts of arable land. They may also contribute significantly to global climate change.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realise until the two threads here how vile I find the idea of "it'll be fine if you just take a few pills a day"

[/ QUOTE ]

I originally said eating pills as an example of how to make sure you would get all nutrients, I never said it's necessary, or that it would need to be daily. I didn't realize how afraid of eating pills some of you guys are, personally I eat them sometimes even though I do eat meat. Also, vegan diet is on average probably healthier than the diets of most meat eaters.

That said, how do you vegetarians take care of B12-vitamine (which AFAIK is the only nutrient that possibly isn't included in any vegetable, although there's some research going on about this)? Vitaminized food?

[madnak]

Yes, fortified foods are where most vegans get it. There are some others though, like tempeh.

[Jiggymike]

I don't see how eating meat and torturing animals are comparable. Theoretically, animals raised for meat are supposed to be treated well (I know they often aren't but this is a different point) and made healthy in order to be viable for consumption. The farmer takes care of the animal, raises it, and has it killed for the sole purpose of food and income. He/she derives pleasure not from making the animal die some horrible way but from the money made to support himself and family. Just because it is possible to live off of nothing but vegetable matter does not make it WRONG to raise and kill animals. Looked at another way, if we weren't raising pigs (best example) for meat, we wouldn't raise them at ALL and there would only be a few around as pets. These animals are no longer wild and only exist for commercial purposes, if they weren't being raised they would basically be extinct. Which option is preferable?

Torturing animals is another ballpark altogether. Cats and dogs are bred as pets, not as food sources (in most first world countries). By killing them and taking pleasure from it, you are only benefitting yourself in a manner that would be considered sick/sadistic by most. It is 'self-gain' in a way that a farmer is gaining from raising/killing animals but it does not benefit anyone but the killer. It also puts the animal through considerable suffering, which good farmers do not do.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
These animals are no longer wild and only exist for commercial purposes, if they weren't being raised they would basically be extinct. Which option is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely better to never exist than to be born for the sole purpose of being slaughtered and live an unnatural life full of pain. And even most of the "best" farmers still keep animals in uncomfortable prisons where they can't live even nearly like they would if they were free and in nature.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just as healthy (perhaps healthier) as your meat eating friends if you're proactive about your diet (this may require taking vitamin supplements).

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realise until the two threads here how vile I find the idea of "it'll be fine if you just take a few pills a day"

Its also hyprocritical if offered by someone who generally prefers 'natural' options, which I think may often be the case.

There are lots and lots of things that aren't neccesities, but life would become thoroughly unenjoyable without them.

If we follow that route then SitnHit may end up having a point.

But then if people commited suicide, could we eat them? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Would it be ok if we could find a way to breed animals with no sentience? If not, do you mind torturing of plants? Is humanity becoming fruitarian (http://www.fruitarian.com/) the ultimate goal? (according to their website it cures cancer and AIDS /images/graemlins/cool.gif )

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just an elaborate dodge. If eating meat is wrong, it doesn't matter whether it makes your life less fun or not. Paying for movies makes my life less fun, at least in the short-term, but stealing is wrong, so I don't do it.

And I really don't get your complaint about taking a few pills. You aren't being forced to take a few pills, you are more than welcome to become vitamin-deficient. You aren't currently being obligated or forced to eat meat, are you? You just do it because you are hungry and need the protein, and perhaps you even like meat. Again, its not valid to claim this would be a great imposition on you, if you accept that eating meat actually IS wrong. So fight the battle on the true front, argue that eating meat ISNT wrong, and you are in the clear.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These animals are no longer wild and only exist for commercial purposes, if they weren't being raised they would basically be extinct. Which option is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely better to never exist than to be born for the sole purpose of being slaughtered and live an unnatural life full of pain. And even most of the "best" farmers still keep animals in uncomfortable prisons where they can't live even nearly like they would if they were free and in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about free range animals? I do agree that bad farming practices should be put to an end e.g. chicken coops where they are piled on top of one another and cramped pig stys. You should realize, however, that animals don't need 'freedom' to be happy, they need territory and food, which they should be provided. My pets at home aren't unhappy because they aren't 'wild' and 'free' in nature, they are provided with all their necessities and ample space to move around and exercise in. Not giving these amenities to farm animals is wrong but raising them to be slaughtered and eaten does not seem morally objectionable to me, it seems like nature + business. Should omnivorous animals (like bears) not eat meat because it's 'wrong?' How do people feel about hunting?

Personally, I would prefer to be a vegetarian but I have not been able to phase meat out of my diet and I think I enjoy it too much to not eat it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These animals are no longer wild and only exist for commercial purposes, if they weren't being raised they would basically be extinct. Which option is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely better to never exist than to be born for the sole purpose of being slaughtered and live an unnatural life full of pain. And even most of the "best" farmers still keep animals in uncomfortable prisons where they can't live even nearly like they would if they were free and in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about free range animals? I do agree that bad farming practices should be put to an end e.g. chicken coops where they are piled on top of one another and cramped pig stys. You should realize, however, that animals don't need 'freedom' to be happy, they need territory and food, which they should be provided. My pets at home aren't unhappy because they aren't 'wild' and 'free' in nature, they are provided with all their necessities and ample space to move around and exercise in. Not giving these amenities to farm animals is wrong but raising them to be slaughtered and eaten does not seem morally objectionable to me, it seems like nature + business. Should omnivorous animals (like bears) not eat meat because it's 'wrong?' How do people feel about hunting?

Personally, I would prefer to be a vegetarian but I have not been able to phase meat out of my diet and I think I enjoy it too much to not eat it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I will ever understand this argument. "Bears eat animals, why can't we?" Seriously? Thats a legitimate, intentional argument? Can you explain to me why thats valid, in a way that still prevents me from, say, mauling campers and stealing pickanick baskets?

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think I will ever understand this argument. "Bears eat animals, why can't we?" Seriously? Thats a legitimate, intentional argument? Can you explain to me why thats valid, in a way that still prevents me from, say, mauling campers and stealing pickanick baskets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I agree, it is a terrible argument and I meant to remove it from my original post but my computer at school doesn't delete things the same ways as my computer at home, its weird. But can you explain why you think eating meat is morally wrong besides raising animals in poor conditions? You seem to have thought about the issue quite a bit and I am curious to hear.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think I will ever understand this argument. "Bears eat animals, why can't we?" Seriously? Thats a legitimate, intentional argument? Can you explain to me why thats valid, in a way that still prevents me from, say, mauling campers and stealing pickanick baskets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I agree, it is a terrible argument and I meant to remove it from my original post but my computer at school doesn't delete things the same ways as my computer at home, its weird. But can you explain why you think eating meat is morally wrong besides raising animals in poor conditions? You seem to have thought about the issue quite a bit and I am curious to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have thought about it a lot, and I am not sure I DO think eating animals is wrong. I've posted on a few of these threads in the past, mostly asking for people to explain to me why it was ok to eat meat. It seems wrong, but I am not sure I have a firm grasp on it. I eat as much meat as anyone else. I am not saying that you all need to be vegetarians...far from it. I'm just trying to force people away from specious arguments like "it's natural" and "you need meat or you die."

It seems to me that slaughtering other animals that feel pain and suffer is wrong. Slaughtering humans is obviously wrong, because we know how much they suffer, since we are one. Killing gnats is probably ok, since it is extremely unlikely that they suffer...they aren't really equipped. So, we have ourselves a continuum, and obviously, drawing lines is always partly arbitrary. DS made the point that we should stick to eating fish, and that is obviously a good point. Fish feel far less pain (if any) and suffer less, so killing them is 'more ok.' Animal testing ethics standards are far lower for experiments on fish compared to, say, mice or chimps, and for good reason. Where do cows fit on this spectrum? How about dogs? Chimps? The mentally incapacitated or brain-dead? Just because no one WANTS to eat chimps or fetuses or the brain-dead doesn't mean they don't fit on the spectrum of ability to suffer SOMEWHERE.

The ability to suffer isn't the only consideration, but IMO its the most important. This isn't the only reason I think abortion is ok, but its one of them. So, where do we want to draw the line, and can we be consistent?

In the end it probably has a lot to do with empathy, at least for me. There have been a few threads about racism and other topics to which "ingroup/outgroup" classifcations are the fundamental issue. I am not a racist because I consider all human beings to be part of my ingroup, and I empathize with ALL of them. I also empathize with a lot of animals. I have different ingroups for different topics, I suppose, but chimps are in my ingroup for a lot of things. I don't think chimp testing is acceptable where human testing isn't. I don't think we can kill and eat chimps. I don't know where I draw my line, what animals are NOT in my ingroup. But its below chimps and above fish, for sure.

That was a lot of scattershot rambling, but hopefully I answered your questions.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
But can you explain why you think eating meat is morally wrong besides raising animals in poor conditions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to answer too, if it's ok. Basically, I can't see many rational differences between killing (and eating) a human and killing a pig. Especially if the human in question is a very little child or has some severe brain damage. And killing people is wrong, right?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But can you explain why you think eating meat is morally wrong besides raising animals in poor conditions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to answer too, if it's ok. Basically, I can't see many rational differences between killing (and eating) a human and killing a pig. Especially if the human in question is a very little child or has some severe brain damage. And killing people is wrong, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the first step towards making a point, but it isn't actually making a point. WHY is killing a human being wrong? What assumptions are you basing that on, and are these assumptions shared by all humans, or at least most?

[Jiggymike]

I think that 'eating meat' is actually a two part question that most people only address one part of. Lots of people who argue against eating meat are in fact arguing against the raising of animals to be slaughtered and the poor conditions they are housed in. I actually agree 100% with this point - if you are going to raise animals to have them killed and sold, you should at least be responsible for making sure the animal lives a decent life. I eat meat but I will not order veal because I think, while it is not inhumane to kill an animal for food purposes, it IS inhumane to let it live in a box and feed it unnatural foods (same goes for foie grois). If I have the opportunity to eat free range meat (and can afford it), I do so.

The next part of the equation is the actual killing for consumption. In my mind, if you raise an animal for it to be killed, as long as you take care of it and are doing it to support yourself as a business, it is not morally wrong. Killing of ANY animal is sort of wrong (catching fish and keeping it upsets me a little because they just look so pathetic when you put them in a cooler or something) but it is JUSTIFIABLE if there are good reasons for it - and I think eating meat is a fine reason. It tastes good and it provides the body with nutrients. Yes, it is possible to get them from vegetables but I do not have a moral dilemma with eating animals, even if I am a complete animal lover (which I am).

On the other hand, I do not really agree with hunting. Most people hunt because it makes them feel 'manly' or because they want a trophy. I don't care what anyone says but there is NO challenge in shooting a deer - yeah yeah, you have to stalk it and keep it from running away, whatever. Kill it with your bare hands and MAYBE I'll be okay with it but to sneak up on a wild animal and shoot it is different for me than raising an animal specifically as a business proposition.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that 'eating meat' is actually a two part question that most people only address one part of. Lots of people who argue against eating meat are in fact arguing against the raising of animals to be slaughtered and the poor conditions they are housed in. I actually agree 100% with this point - if you are going to raise animals to have them killed and sold, you should at least be responsible for making sure the animal lives a decent life. I eat meat but I will not order veal because I think, while it is not inhumane to kill an animal for food purposes, it IS inhumane to let it live in a box and feed it unnatural foods (same goes for foie grois). If I have the opportunity to eat free range meat (and can afford it), I do so.

The next part of the equation is the actual killing for consumption. In my mind, if you raise an animal for it to be killed, as long as you take care of it and are doing it to support yourself as a business, it is not morally wrong. Killing of ANY animal is sort of wrong (catching fish and keeping it upsets me a little because they just look so pathetic when you put them in a cooler or something) but it is JUSTIFIABLE if there are good reasons for it - and I think eating meat is a fine reason. It tastes good and it provides the body with nutrients. Yes, it is possible to get them from vegetables but I do not have a moral dilemma with eating animals, even if I am a complete animal lover (which I am).

On the other hand, I do not really agree with hunting. Most people hunt because it makes them feel 'manly' or because they want a trophy. I don't care what anyone says but there is NO challenge in shooting a deer - yeah yeah, you have to stalk it and keep it from running away, whatever. Kill it with your bare hands and MAYBE I'll be okay with it but to sneak up on a wild animal and shoot it is different for me than raising an animal specifically as a business proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have a problem with what you are saying. You are saying it is JUSTIFIABLE because we get things out of it, but then you freely admit that they are things we could get elsewhere with no suffering. So, how then is it justifiable?

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I have a problem with what you are saying. You are saying it is JUSTIFIABLE because we get things out of it, but then you freely admit that they are things we could get elsewhere with no suffering. So, how then is it justifiable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what if I just said that it was justifiable because people enjoy eating meat, would that change anything? Or what about it is easier/less expensive to get those nutrients from meat? What I'm saying is that I don't think there is anything wrong with killing an animal for meat IF THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR ITS EXISTENCE (caps for emphasis, not to be yelling). I'm not saying that killing animals is great, just that it isn't wrong.

[kevin017]

i have a question for the anti-meat eaters, it goes back to the bear example.

if you think there is no difference between killing an animal for fun, and killing it to eat it, how can you sit idly by while bears and other animals are killing and eating animals? shouldn't you be forming groups to stop the atrocities committed by bears?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These animals are no longer wild and only exist for commercial purposes, if they weren't being raised they would basically be extinct. Which option is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely better to never exist than to be born for the sole purpose of being slaughtered and live an unnatural life full of pain. And even most of the "best" farmers still keep animals in uncomfortable prisons where they can't live even nearly like they would if they were free and in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously. Which is why Borodogs point, if serious, was completely irrelevant.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
if you think there is no difference between killing an animal for fun, and killing it to eat it, how can you sit idly by while bears and other animals are killing and eating animals? shouldn't you be forming groups to stop the atrocities committed by bears?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's part of the nature. Bears, unlike humans, can't make decisions based on ethics and I'm also pretty sure they really need to eat meat. So being killed by a bear is very different from being killed by a human.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree you don't need meat. From the American Dietetic Association:

[ QUOTE ]
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been a vegetarian all my life, and have never taken nutritional supplements. I'm 6', 190 pounds, and lean. I played rugby and ran track through high school. I was the dux of my school, and have a IIa honors degree in math and physics. I'm now 25, in good shape and have never had a medical problem. My grandad is 84 and has been a vegetarian for 33 years, and he's also in excellent health and still works 4 days a week. He became a vegetarian after having high blood pressure, angina, and arthritis at 50, all of which a vegetarian diet (and vitamin E supplements) completely cured.

Most people who try vegetarian diets have problems because they don't understand nutrition. You need to eat wholegrains (in fact, everyone should - it'd cut cancer and and heart disease by 30%) instead of white/processed and occasionally have high mineral/vitamin foods such as nuts. That's it. Everything else is as normal.

Regarding your actual post - I don't see anything horribly wrong with eating meat, especially chicken and fish. However, higher mammals such as cows definitely have the ability to feel emotions, and they experience pain, distress and discomfort. I don't feel comfortable breeding such creatures solely for the purpose of killing and eating them - especially when they inevitably experience distress during the process. I find the idea barbaric. Is human life valuable only because it's intelligent and highly self-aware? I think human to animal awareness/emotion is far more of a continuum than many would believe.

I think cruelty to animals is different to meat eating, because torturing involves gaining pleasure solely from a creature's misery. It's a different mindset.

Sorry for the long post.

[/ QUOTE ]

A+

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]

Well what if I just said that it was justifiable because people enjoy eating meat, would that change anything? Or what about it is easier/less expensive to get those nutrients from meat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't seriously think that if something tastes a little better in one's mouth and/or makes it's life a tiny little bit easier, it justifies KILLING a similar being?

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that I don't think there is anything wrong with killing an animal for meat IF THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR ITS EXISTENCE

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would this matter? It's kinda like with babies, if you don't want to get kids, you don't need to make them, and because they never exist, you don't do anything wrong to them. But once a child is born, it has rights, and you can't just decide to kill it (even if that was the sole purpose for its existence).

[kevin017]

bears can't make decisions based on ethics, but we can. we judge their decision to be wrong, so shouldn't we stop them? why do you care about saving animals from being killed by humans, but when an animal kills an animal its just part of nature and you wash your hands of it? obv this doesn't apply to the broad argument, just to the idea that there's no difference between killing for fun and for food, even if there are alternatives to that food.

also, bears don't need meat to live. no animal needs meat to live any more than humans do, ie. even the animals that rely the most on meat (which doesn't include bears), can likely be kept healthy by us.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
i have a question for the anti-meat eaters, it goes back to the bear example.

if you think there is no difference between killing an animal for fun, and killing it to eat it, how can you sit idly by while bears and other animals are killing and eating animals? shouldn't you be forming groups to stop the atrocities committed by bears?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. If we can't stop every single instance of suffering in the world, why stop any?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I have a problem with what you are saying. You are saying it is JUSTIFIABLE because we get things out of it, but then you freely admit that they are things we could get elsewhere with no suffering. So, how then is it justifiable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what if I just said that it was justifiable because people enjoy eating meat, would that change anything? Or what about it is easier/less expensive to get those nutrients from meat? What I'm saying is that I don't think there is anything wrong with killing an animal for meat IF THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR ITS EXISTENCE (caps for emphasis, not to be yelling). I'm not saying that killing animals is great, just that it isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as long as John Smith and his wife agree that the only reason they are going to have children is so that they can rape and then eat them, its ok? It would be the only reason that those children ever came into existence.

[TimWillTell]

During puberty I had to follow a strict vegetarian diet due to health-problems.
Because of this diet health problems became worse, because my digestion-system appeared to have problems with: potatoes, beans, soja, tauge, tahoe, mushrooms and all the other so-called meat-replacements.
I lost way to much wight and the doctors decided a had to start eating meat again, because my body couldn't handle a vegetarian diet.
I started eating meat again and recovered.
I suggest everybody that doesn't need meat, stop eating it, but let my enjoy my juicy steak!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
During puberty I had to follow a strict vegetarian diet due to health-problems.
Because of this diet health problems became worse, because my digestion-system appeared to have problems with: potatoes, beans, soja, tauge, tahoe, mushrooms and all the other so-called meat-replacements.
I lost way to much wight and the doctors decided a had to start eating meat again, because my body couldn't handle a vegetarian diet.
I started eating meat again and recovered.
I suggest everybody that doesn't need meat, stop eating it, but let my enjoy my juicy steak!

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird, same thing happens to me when I don't drink the blood of the innocent.

[kidcolin]

For a large portion of Americans, maybe not. I'm still unsure about babies and young children though. I know a few vegetarians who dropped it once they became pregnant. It might not be "necessary", but when it comes to your baby, I would never fault anyone for not [censored] around and sticking to what is known to work.

For other parts of the world, I'd argue it is necessary (Africa especially).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
For a large portion of Americans, maybe not. I'm still unsure about babies and young children though. I know a few vegetarians who dropped it once they became pregnant. It might not be "necessary", but when it comes to your baby, I would never fault anyone for not [censored] around and sticking to what is known to work.

For other parts of the world, I'd argue it is necessary (Africa especially).

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, and I think this can be used as a legitimate argument as long as it is true. If it is economically or practically impossible for some society to survive unless they eat meat, then that is a relevant factor, and probably obliterates any other moral qualms.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I have a problem with what you are saying. You are saying it is JUSTIFIABLE because we get things out of it, but then you freely admit that they are things we could get elsewhere with no suffering. So, how then is it justifiable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what if I just said that it was justifiable because people enjoy eating meat, would that change anything? Or what about it is easier/less expensive to get those nutrients from meat? What I'm saying is that I don't think there is anything wrong with killing an animal for meat IF THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR ITS EXISTENCE (caps for emphasis, not to be yelling). I'm not saying that killing animals is great, just that it isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as long as John Smith and his wife agree that the only reason they are going to have children is so that they can rape and then eat them, its ok? It would be the only reason that those children ever came into existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose so, if you equate raping and eating a child (which pretty much anyone would consider barbaric) to raising and killing an animal (which some would consider barbaric but most would not). If people stopped breeding animals for the purpose of eating them, I would gladly discontinue the practice. I know this is a terribly smarmy response but it is the truth - the only reason I would become a vegetarian would be to take a stance on the issue, and I do not feel strongly enough about it to take that step just yet. Hopefully one day I will get a pet chicken and my love for it will stop me from eating meat ever again (this sounds idiotic but I really want a pet chicken and I have a feeling once I do, that will be it for meat for me). I do think a lot of people have made good points about why slaughtering animals is wrong here, though.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I have a problem with what you are saying. You are saying it is JUSTIFIABLE because we get things out of it, but then you freely admit that they are things we could get elsewhere with no suffering. So, how then is it justifiable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what if I just said that it was justifiable because people enjoy eating meat, would that change anything? Or what about it is easier/less expensive to get those nutrients from meat? What I'm saying is that I don't think there is anything wrong with killing an animal for meat IF THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR ITS EXISTENCE (caps for emphasis, not to be yelling). I'm not saying that killing animals is great, just that it isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as long as John Smith and his wife agree that the only reason they are going to have children is so that they can rape and then eat them, its ok? It would be the only reason that those children ever came into existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose so, if you equate raping and eating a child (which pretty much anyone would consider barbaric) to raising and killing an animal (which some would consider barbaric but most would not). If people stopped breeding animals for the purpose of eating them, I would gladly discontinue the practice. I know this is a terribly smarmy response but it is the truth - the only reason I would become a vegetarian would be to take a stance on the issue, and I do not feel strongly enough about it to take that step just yet. Hopefully one day I will get a pet chicken and my love for it will stop me from eating meat ever again (this sounds idiotic but I really want a pet chicken and I have a feeling once I do, that will be it for meat for me). I do think a lot of people have made good points about why slaughtering animals is wrong here, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am not comparing the raping and eating of a child with the raising and eating of an animal. I am saying that the 'thats the whole reason it exists in the first place' argument is invalid. The reason we cause a sentient, suffering being to exist has no effect on what we are then allowed to do to it.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I suppose so, if you equate raping and eating a child (which pretty much anyone would consider barbaric) to raising and killing an animal (which some would consider barbaric but most would not). If people stopped breeding animals for the purpose of eating them, I would gladly discontinue the practice. I know this is a terribly smarmy response but it is the truth - the only reason I would become a vegetarian would be to take a stance on the issue, and I do not feel strongly enough about it to take that step just yet. Hopefully one day I will get a pet chicken and my love for it will stop me from eating meat ever again (this sounds idiotic but I really want a pet chicken and I have a feeling once I do, that will be it for meat for me). I do think a lot of people have made good points about why slaughtering animals is wrong here, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am not comparing the raping and eating of a child with the raising and eating of an animal. I am saying that the 'thats the whole reason it exists in the first place' argument is invalid. The reason we cause a sentient, suffering being to exist has no effect on what we are then allowed to do to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you want to argue that animals should never be bred for food (if other means are available), I honestly cannot provide a counterargument to that and I do not think I would want to. However, as I stated earlier, I just cannot make myself feel bad about eating meat at the moment (although I have in the past), probably in the future I will at least phase out most meat besides fish as I become more morally inclined. On the other hand, I don't think I would ever campaign for vegetarianism or attempt to push people towards those beliefs.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I suppose so, if you equate raping and eating a child (which pretty much anyone would consider barbaric) to raising and killing an animal (which some would consider barbaric but most would not). If people stopped breeding animals for the purpose of eating them, I would gladly discontinue the practice. I know this is a terribly smarmy response but it is the truth - the only reason I would become a vegetarian would be to take a stance on the issue, and I do not feel strongly enough about it to take that step just yet. Hopefully one day I will get a pet chicken and my love for it will stop me from eating meat ever again (this sounds idiotic but I really want a pet chicken and I have a feeling once I do, that will be it for meat for me). I do think a lot of people have made good points about why slaughtering animals is wrong here, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am not comparing the raping and eating of a child with the raising and eating of an animal. I am saying that the 'thats the whole reason it exists in the first place' argument is invalid. The reason we cause a sentient, suffering being to exist has no effect on what we are then allowed to do to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you want to argue that animals should never be bred for food (if other means are available), I honestly cannot provide a counterargument to that and I do not think I would want to. However, as I stated earlier, I just cannot make myself feel bad about eating meat at the moment (although I have in the past), probably in the future I will at least phase out most meat besides fish as I become more morally inclined. On the other hand, I don't think I would ever campaign for vegetarianism or attempt to push people towards those beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a good point. Not all people feel empathy for the same ingroup. My ingroup is probably larger than the average persons, and I can't really give any good reasons for it. Its just the way I feel. Many peoples ingroups are only their family, only their sports teams fans, only their nation, only their race, or only their species. Mine is slightly larger than this, and includes at least chimps. This isn't to say I can't recognize differences among members of my ingroup, or that I can't break it up into other groups when needed, but in general, thats who I empathize with.

Is this somehow better than the other ingroups? I don't see why. Empathizing only with whites, or only with Americans, or only with Vhawks are all also valid, in theory. But its the narrower ingroup classifications that, in part(in small part? I dont know), leads to racism, xenophobia, and all sorts of despicable acts. We have an innate desire to do good for our family, our ingroup, because we identify with them, and we share their genes. It has been argued that it is nearly impossible to commit immoral acts against members of your own ingroup. You must either exclude them before you do it (dehumanizing them) or exclude them after you do it (cognitive dissonance). The wider my ingroup, the more likely I am to be compassionate towards a larger number of people. But this is very likely detrimental, genetically. By spreading out my empathy, I am almost certainly dilluting the amount of benefit I give to people who share a large number of my genes. Wide ingrouping is probably selected against. But thats just a product of evolution and demands no moralizing.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how eating meat and torturing animals are comparable. Theoretically, animals raised for meat are supposed to be treated well (I know they often aren't but this is a different point) and made healthy in order to be viable for consumption. The farmer takes care of the animal, raises it, and has it killed for the sole purpose of food and income. He/she derives pleasure not from making the animal die some horrible way but from the money made to support himself and family. Just because it is possible to live off of nothing but vegetable matter does not make it WRONG to raise and kill animals. Looked at another way, if we weren't raising pigs (best example) for meat, we wouldn't raise them at ALL and there would only be a few around as pets. These animals are no longer wild and only exist for commercial purposes, if they weren't being raised they would basically be extinct. Which option is preferable?

Torturing animals is another ballpark altogether. Cats and dogs are bred as pets, not as food sources (in most first world countries). By killing them and taking pleasure from it, you are only benefitting yourself in a manner that would be considered sick/sadistic by most. It is 'self-gain' in a way that a farmer is gaining from raising/killing animals but it does not benefit anyone but the killer. It also puts the animal through considerable suffering, which good farmers do not do.

[/ QUOTE ]

First and foremost, free range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_range) as a concept is great, but in reality the label doesn't mean particularly much. Don't think the animals lived happy lives because they're "free range" - farmers use many different ways to exploit what rules there are, and in many cases there are no rules so they just paste "free range" on virtually anything.

But let's deal with the facts here. Animals are theoretically supposed to be treated well, but they aren't. The fact is that a cat in the microwave suffers far less than the average farm animal these days. This may be valid even if we account for the fact that the cow brings pleasure to many, while the cat brings pleasure to few. If the cow gives pleasure to ten people, but also suffers ten times as much, doesn't your reasoning make the killing of the cow just as bad as the killing of the cat? Frankly, your reasoning seems inconsistent in general. You're using all kinds of strange arguments that involve different moral assumptions. I'll get to that.

[ QUOTE ]
I do agree that bad farming practices should be put to an end e.g. chicken coops where they are piled on top of one another and cramped pig stys.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're almost certainly complicit in it. I mean, it's fair enough if you make a clear distinction between paying for the meat and being responsible for the poor conditions, but it seems like a cop-out. "Well, yeah, most of the animals are mistreated. But I'm not the one mistreating them, I'm just paying others to do it." I'm not saying that's necessarily invalid, but do you apply a similar standard to other things? And would you buy meat if all of the animals were mistreated? How does the vast minority that aren't indicative of some kind of overarching moral distinction?

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I would prefer to be a vegetarian but I have not been able to phase meat out of my diet and I think I enjoy it too much to not eat it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeesh, I'll try not to be too harsh here, but I can't really respect that. If you think eating meat is wrong, then you can become a vegetarian. You may not be able to just drop meat all at once, but if you're creative and serious about this, you can definitely find a way. You're obviously an intelligent person. Therefore, this reads like "EXCUSE" written in big red letters to me. If it's not wrong, then there's nothing to worry about. It sounds like right now you're eating meat due to pure inertia, while you remain uncertain about whether it's something you want to do. I think it's better to enthusiastically eat lots of meat (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor) than to apologetically eat it when you "need it."

[ QUOTE ]
But can you explain why you think eating meat is morally wrong besides raising animals in poor conditions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you asked vhawk, but I think I'm a "Vhawk approved" poster, and I actually am a vegetarian, so.

Poor conditions are 90% of it for me. I once posted my reasoning in very clear terms. But I doubt I'll help you very much. See, I have a number of ethical premises that I'm well aware of. I make ethical decisions on the basis of those premises. The premises themselves come purely from how I feel, but I'm rational in how I apply them. Some of the premises may seem a bit odd - "there's nothing wrong with killing," for example. But at heart it's mainly that I hate suffering and don't want my hands in it at all. There are also some social responsibility issues, but they're pretty minor for me - I'm not in the whole "boycott Wal-Mart" camp.

I tried being vegan to completely remove myself from the process, but I decided that it's impossible to remove all accountability without going to live in a cave or something, and I decided that the energy it took to keep it up, and the lost opportunities in terms of socialization, etc, were just not worth the sense of purity.

I am very happy with my choice to avoid all animal flesh - it seems like the ideal spot for me - but going up the scale isn't something I would consider "wrong." I think as people become more compassionate and intelligent in general, more and more will come to conclusions similar to my own, so the best thing I can do to promote vegetarianism is to encourage compassion. If the compassion isn't there, then go nuts. There's nothing wrong with not having feelings for animals. I know this doesn't apply to you, and that's what concerns me.

Also, I have no problem with hunting. I think hunting may even increase the mean happiness across animal populations by managing overpopulation. Even if it doesn't, the amount of pain seems relatively minor - especially for hunters who insist on instantaneous kills. I don't make distinctions among types of pleasure. The "I have a trophy" pleasure is just as valid to me as the "I just helped someone" pleasure (or even the "I showed that woman who's boss" pleasure). The question is how to maximize pleasure, and that is the basis for my judgment about validity - the overall impact on suffering. Thus, a serial killer who causes an excessive amount of pain in order to achieve a small degree of pleasure, is worse than the hunter, who causes a small amount of pain in order to achieve a large degree of pleasure.

[ QUOTE ]
IF THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR ITS EXISTENCE

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "purpose?" The purpose its captors have in mind? The purpose its mother has in mind? The purpose it has in mind? Personally, I don't think "purpose" is a relevant concept when it comes to animals other than humans. I think we are the only species developed enough to actually seek out a "purpose," and that it's very unfair to the cow talk about what its "purpose" is. It's the purpose we have for it, and that purpose is not in its best interest.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose so, if you equate raping and eating a child (which pretty much anyone would consider barbaric) to raising and killing an animal (which some would consider barbaric but most would not).

[/ QUOTE ]

I know vhawk covered this, but I just want to chime in. The important thing is that you haven't specified why the two acts are different. Vhawk is probing you because you've made many statements, and this interpretation seems consistent with all of them. Thus, the goal is for you to make another statement that clarifies why you see a difference between the scenarios he proposed within your context, or to acknowledge that no such difference exists.

[ QUOTE ]
(this sounds idiotic but I really want a pet chicken and I have a feeling once I do, that will be it for meat for me)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it sounds idiotic at all. Our ethics have to come from our feelings. There is really no other source (you can say God, but please don't). It sounds like the biggest source of concern for you is that all the farming practices are an abstraction for you, and you have trouble making them more immediate and concrete. I recommend visiting a slaughterhouse at some point, and seeing how the reality of the situation sits with you.

[Jiggymike]

Madnak,
Thanks for the great post. As you can see, I'm a bit torn on the whole situation and was just trying to argue the "Why It's OK" to eat meat side, since I do eat meat although I vehemently disagree with many of the practices associated with it and I am passionate about animals and conservation. If farm animals were treated the same way that they are at the best zoos in the world, I still don't know if that would make it "right" to kill them just because they are being treated well.

As for why I eat meat, I would simply say that I enjoy it and I don't feel bad about it - like you said, I feel a disconnect between farming practices/slaughtering an animal and the actual eating of the animal. When I really really think about it, though, it doesn't sit right with me. This leaves me with two options 1. think about it more and eventually become a vegetarian or 2. disregard it and continue with what I am currently doing (as per your inertia comment). For the time being, because I enjoy meat and because I find it easy to cook and buy it, I will certainly continue eating it. However, when I have more time and more financial freedom, I would like to experiment with cooking more vegetarian options and eventually phasing most meat out of my diet (maybe keep just a little in for protein + not going crazy from craving it).

When I go back through the posts, I don't agree with every statement I made (many were written under duress while in my lab at school) but I do agree with some of my general ideas (mainly that killing a cow is different than torturing an animal, eating meat isn't ethically wrong to me, etc.) I addmit I like a lot of the ideas that people put out there and I will have to give this serious consideration very soon. Anyhow I'd love to hear some more thoughts and opinions, this has been a fairly eye-opening thread.

[MelchyBeau]

Obviously microwaving a cat is wrong, meat tastes funny to me when microwaved,

However using a grill or a deep fryer, mmmmmm.

Do you have a problem with all meat?

For instance, If I go hunting and kill a deer for meat, is this wrong?

Is it just wrong to eat mammals? Or is it immoral to eat fish?

what about invertibrates like shrimp or lobster?

Or is it the fact we need to protect animals?

Farming does kill animals, and if we have to increase the amount of farmland we will be destroying ecosystems.



Farming Kills Mice (http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously microwaving a cat is wrong, meat tastes funny to me when microwaved,

However using a grill or a deep fryer, mmmmmm.

Do you have a problem with all meat?

For instance, If I go hunting and kill a deer for meat, is this wrong?

Is it just wrong to eat mammals? Or is it immoral to eat fish?

what about invertibrates like shrimp or lobster?

Or is it the fact we need to protect animals?

Farming does kill animals, and if we have to increase the amount of farmland we will be destroying ecosystems.



Farming Kills Mice (http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Like most things, its a continuum, not a binary switch.

[kevin017]

[ QUOTE ]
Like most things, its a continuum, not a binary switch.

[/ QUOTE ]

so pretty much we should do as much to protect animals as is convenient at the moment?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like most things, its a continuum, not a binary switch.

[/ QUOTE ]

so pretty much we should do as much to protect animals as is convenient at the moment?

[/ QUOTE ]


No. We should protect some animals more than others.

[kevin017]

when it comes down to it, you're basically going to end up drawing the line at the place where it becomes inconvenient/too difficult to continue protecting the animal. its not like when you chop a rat or shoot a deer it doesn't feel pain like a cow does.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
when it comes down to it, you're basically going to end up drawing the line at the place where it becomes inconvenient/too difficult to continue protecting the animal. its not like when you chop a rat or shoot a deer it doesn't feel pain like a cow does.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Everyone who values the feelings of animals will have to draw the line at some point - the suffering is a cost, but it's not irrational or a matter of convenience if the benefits outweigh that cost. Just what level of benefit qualifies may vary from person to person, but it can definitely be internally consistent.

[Chromis]

I believe it is normal and natural for humans to eat meat.

What I find amusing is vegetarians who buy their non-meat molded into the shape of something they refuse to eat (veggie sausage anyone?).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
when it comes down to it, you're basically going to end up drawing the line at the place where it becomes inconvenient/too difficult to continue protecting the animal. its not like when you chop a rat or shoot a deer it doesn't feel pain like a cow does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is EXACTLY like that. Some animals feel pain and suffering to a far greater extent than others. Humans probably suffer the most. Fish probably don't suffer at all, or feel much pain. Mosquitos almost certainly feel no pain.

[kdotsky]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is EXACTLY like that. Some animals feel pain and suffering to a far greater extent than others. Humans probably suffer the most. Fish probably don't suffer at all, or feel much pain. Mosquitos almost certainly feel no pain.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you argue that humans suffer the most? It seems to me that people are assuming humans feel the most pain, then measure the amount of pain an animal feels by how similar their pain responses are to our own. When we see an animal scream and writhe in pain, we can relate to that because it reminds us of our own pain. It might even trigger a hard-wired reaction in us that causes pity. But for animals that cannot scream and writhe we tend to assume their pain is less -- but maybe this is just because we cannot relate to their reactions to pain, so we assume they are not going through pain like we do.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is EXACTLY like that. Some animals feel pain and suffering to a far greater extent than others. Humans probably suffer the most. Fish probably don't suffer at all, or feel much pain. Mosquitos almost certainly feel no pain.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you argue that humans suffer the most? It seems to me that people are assuming humans feel the most pain, then measure the amount of pain an animal feels by how similar their pain responses are to our own. When we see an animal scream and writhe in pain, we can relate to that because it reminds us of our own pain. It might even trigger a hard-wired reaction in us that causes pity. But for animals that cannot scream and writhe we tend to assume their pain is less -- but maybe this is just because we cannot relate to their reactions to pain, so we assume they are not going through pain like we do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

And then there are the fields of neuroscience, physiology, and comparative anatomy. We can be pretty certain that pain is carried in afferent nerve fibers. We even know where in our brain those fibers go, and the purposes for pain at least, if not suffering. So, we take a look at our animal cousins. Do they have all of these efferent nerves? Are they connected to pain centers in their brains? Do they even HAVE brains? I mean, a CO2 detector receives input from its surroundings, but it doesn't feel pain and (presumably) doesn't suffer. So, we make our best guess. We're wrong from time to time, since recent studies have shown that octopi or giant squids (I am not well-read on this, but Rduke might jump in?) apparently have a much more complex nervous system than we thought, and might very well feel a large range of pain and suffering.

So, we make our estimated guesses, do the best we can, and act accordingly. Just like in everything else. You have a better way? We can kill anything that doesn't have a soul, perhaps? Anything thats slower or dumber than us? Anything we've traditionally killed?

[gamblegood]

You guys worry too much.