Another Point About Eating/Torturing Animals

[David Sklansky]

Before making my point, I would first like to say that the biggest reason I like Lestat is that he is just about the only one here who actually is willing to learn and possibly even change his behavior based on the arguments presented to him. The latest example is his readiness to become a vegetarian if he deems the points for it logically insurmountable. Very laudable. And this post might add reasons for him to do that. Despite the discomfort it cause him.

So to alleviate that discomfort to some degree I want to point out to him that he can still eat fish. Since it is highly unlikely they actually suffer. I'm saying this seriously.

Anyway this post is spurred by Chris V making the distinction between animal sufferring being incidental to food making and it being the actual reason to do something, like conduct dog fights. They both cause pleasure but only the first is OK in his book.

Here is the problem. Chris V admits that it would be preferable to avoid the suffering if possible. Thus it would be preferable to prepare animals in a way that doesn't make them suffer. But that admission has implications. If he didn't make that admission there wouldn't be a problem. And those who view animals as the same as insects and plants don't get caught in it.

But once you admit that it is better for animals not to suffer you must admit other things. Such as that there is something wrong with you if you enjoy watching that sufferring. But isn't there also something wrong with you if you DON'T MIND that the animal suffers. Suppose you could prevent an animal from suffering by snapping your fingers? Wouldn't there be something wrong with you if you DIDN'T? What about if you had to give up a piece of a Hershey Bar?

The thing is that once you admit that an animal's suffering is in any way worse than a worm's or a plant's (or probably a fish's), then you have to judge yourself based on the lengths you will go to stop it. I don't think many would claim that your family's nutrition should suffer. Or maybe even that you should deprive yourself of a major food source that you are very uncomfortable giving up.

On the other hand if you won't pay the nickel more for a brand that is much more humane, or if you insist on a food that is only very slightly preferable to an alternative that is less tortuous to an animal, you are being a semi hypocrite when you decry Michael Vick

[chezlaw]

people who want to change their eating habits to minimise animal suffering should not become vegetarians.

do you see why?

chez

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
people who want to change their eating habits to minimise animal suffering should not become vegetarians.

do you see why?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But its off the real subject anyway. Which is acts of ommission vs acts of commission. Something we have not seen the last of our debates.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people who want to change their eating habits to minimise animal suffering should not become vegetarians.

do you see why?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But its off the real subject anyway. Which is acts of ommission vs acts of commission. Something we have not seen the last of our debates.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I wont hijack but something for lestat to consider perhaps.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people who want to change their eating habits to minimise animal suffering should not become vegetarians.

do you see why?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But its off the real subject anyway. Which is acts of ommission vs acts of commission. Something we have not seen the last of our debates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are there really such things as 'acts of omission'. I think not, but I'm listening.

luckyme

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
people who want to change their eating habits to minimise animal suffering should not become vegetarians.

do you see why?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't see why.

Since this thread is long dead, could you provide your reasoning? I can't see any possible reason this would be true. Modern meat production involves far more land, more growing of crops, and more forest destruction than a vegetarian diet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ..._Vegetarianism

I can't find any support for your statement.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people who want to change their eating habits to minimise animal suffering should not become vegetarians.

do you see why?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't see why.

Since this thread is long dead, could you provide your reasoning? I can't see any possible reason this would be true. Modern meat production involves far more land, more growing of crops, and more forest destruction than a vegetarian diet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ..._Vegetarianism

I can't find any support for your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]
The environmental benefits are a different issue, my claim is just about the suffering of animals being eaten. here goes:

1) Not obvious vegetarianism reduces suffering at all.

The choice here is between NoMeat or EthicalMeat. NoMeat equals no suffering as the animal wont exist but its not obvious that an animal produced for EthicalMeat has a net suffering, maybe it's better off with a decent life and being humanely killed then it would be not existing.

2) NonEthicalMeat results in much suffering.

We can take this as read or there's no point in vegetarianism at all. Importantly this makes no direct difference to NoMeat or EthicalMeat.

3) People are indifferent.

Most people are indifferent to to some extent. They may prefer buying EthicalMeat but there's a limit to how much money and effort they will put into it.

This is the nub, the more people who buy EthicalMeat the cheaper and easier it becomes to buy EthicalMeat and the EthicalMeat market will capture more and more of the indifferent market.

There's an additional benefit in that many of us think EthicalMeat generally tastes better than nonEthicalMeat (no-one thinks the reverse though many claim they're the same) so accidental exposure to the indifferent may reduce there indifference in the right direction.

So a vegetarian is not directly responsible for less suffering than an EthicalMeat eater and is doing less to reduce suffering caused by others than if they demanded ethicalMeat. Instead of all the "suitable for vegetarian" labels they should concentrate on "produced with 100% EthicalMeat".

chez

[Lestat]

There must be a name for this trap I'm in, because I'm having a hard time finding a way out. I think it has to do with a sliding scale of what's reasonable.

I believe it's good to make charitable donations and help others less fortunate out. I am not however, willing to go broke myself doing so. I'm not even willing to lose my house, or even have my child lose her dance classes. I choose what seems reasonable to me. So if I'm not willing to let my children sacrifice a dance class, does this mean that in order to be logically consistent, I shouldn't give to charity at all?!!

Since I have allowed that humans have a "right" to eat animals, I think I adequately seperate myself from a vegan mentality. I realize that in order to eat an animal, it will probably have to suffer some. I have no problem that my ancestors used individually hand thrown spears to hunt down the animals they ate. In fact, I'm glad they did so, since I wouldn't be here if they didn't. No doubt the animals they hunted via this method suffered for thousands of years. But that's ok, because I recognize that humans are above animals in the food chain.

Why aren't I ok with saying that I'm against the "senseless" suffering of animals? If I opt for steak instead of fois gras (because fois gras is a crueler means of getting a meal), isn't that consistent with my stance? If I opt for chicken from farms that do a better job of treating those chickens, haven't I made a contribution to my position?

Again, I acknowledge that humans are omnivores. We didn't claw our way to the top of the food chain to consist on a bunch of lettuce. I'm simply saying that "senseless" *abuse* of animals is abhorent to me (stepping on Fido's tail for kicks). Where am I being inconsistent?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Where am I being inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me started !
What consistency connection of any merit could there be between stepping on a dogs tail and eating a chicken.
cheeeeesh.

luckyme

[van_exel_fan]

I think a lot of vegetarians are forgetting (although they may have never known) exactly how delicious meat is. I don't get why no one tells lions to stop ripping open deer flesh with their sharp teeth or wolves to stop hunting for the neighbor's missing poodle...

With our ability to evolve and reason we have decided to no longer kill buffalo with spears and shotguns...we try to lower the suffering as much as we can.

Eating meat is part of the human diet and it is inhumane to suggest that we should not act human.