Another Point About Eating/Torturing Animals

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Ethics 101

Eating free range > eating meat > vegetarianism

Obviously, it's better to eat animals that were well treated than those who weren't, but it's also better to eat mistreated animals than no animals at all. I would much rather see a being have an unhappy life than never be born at all and vegetarianism prevents births. And even if you don't agree with that, the moral difference between eating free range... eating an animal that's had a happy life... and eating vegetarian... preventing animals from being born at all... isn't even remotely close. Eating free range is so obviously morally superior to eating vegetarian that I have a hard time imagining how vegetarians can delude themselves into being vegetarian at all (moral vegetarians anyway). There are certainly health reasons to be vegetarian, but the moral reasons are a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]
Other reasons for being vegetarian is the thought of the way animals are treated negates the taste pleasure and they get pleasure from doing something 'worthy'. but its typical of ideologies that the ideals become much more important than the cause being fought in the first place, vegetarianism suffers from this and like all ideologies has its extremists nutters.

(I'm not convinced a life of almost guaranteed extreme suffering is better than not being born but a degree of suffering is generally okay - otherwise having kids would be immoral)

chez

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I would much rather see a being have an unhappy life than never be born at all

[/ QUOTE ]
Therefore condoms are immoral? Maybe even prosecuting rape is immoral. And you call the vegetarian moral argument a joke. Wow.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
but it's also better to eat mistreated animals than no animals at all. I would much rather see a being have an unhappy life than never be born at all and vegetarianism prevents births.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've jumped the shark.

You are saying it is IMMORAL to NOT support an industry which breeds animals for extreme suffering. This is ludicrous. In that case, it is immoral to NOT rape your sister in the attempt to impregnate her at 13 -- after all, it's much more moral to try and bring another human into the world at first chance, right?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it depends what you mean by "semi." A lot of the reason to decry Vick doesn't even have much to do with how you feel about animals (as you pointed out yourself in an earlier post, referring to the effect on other humans as the big reason). Since we live in a world where felonies are drawn on what are essentially arbitrary lines (at least when it comes to where exactly you draw them), I think you can judge someone based on his adherence to them, since he should know that he's doing something that other people consider grossly offensive. For example, if I hook up with a 17-year-old in a state where that's legal, I still might look down on someone who does it with a 15-year-old. It's objectively a similar thing, but I think the arbitrary cut off means something, and that as a society you are right to judge people who have a disregard for it (because of what it implies for future situations).

Even if the act itself doesn't bother you, the fact that he's willing to do it should.

The other big difference between Vick and someone who orders veal even though he likes chicken almost as much is that the veal eater has some reasonable discord between his actions and the 3rd-party ramifications of them. It's the same reason people vote for things that they don't actually try to restrict or even speak bad of in social settings. Should they intellectually connect the dots? Sure. But I think you can judge someone more harshly when the effects of what he's doing are right in front of him and perfectly clear than when he maybe just hasn't thought much about it and is going along with the status quo. The people who actually abuse the baby cows are the ones most responsible for registering the ramifications of the act; by the time it's distributed, smothered in marinara sauce, and listed as a daily special, it has some degree of "acceptance" that drops it to what I would say is only very mild hypocrisy.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but it's also better to eat mistreated animals than no animals at all. I would much rather see a being have an unhappy life than never be born at all and vegetarianism prevents births.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've jumped the shark.

You are saying it is IMMORAL to NOT support an industry which breeds animals for extreme suffering. This is ludicrous. In that case, it is immoral to NOT rape your sister in the attempt to impregnate her at 13 -- after all, it's much more moral to try and bring another human into the world at first chance, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Whilst he overstates the case, it is the case that just because something will suffer to some extent is not a moral reason not to prevent it being born in the first place. we all suffer to some extent.

So just to say animals bred for eating will suffer to some extent is not a moral reason to be a vegetarian. It may well be a reason not to eat meat from sources that cause excessive suffering.

chez

[van_exel_fan]

Vegetarians push their beliefs the same way Christians push religion.

If it weren't for meat, none of us would be here!!!!!!!!!!!
That's just as good as what a theist can say about God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Vegetarians push their beliefs the same way Christians push religion.

If it weren't for meat, none of us would be here!!!!!!!!!!!
That's just as good as what a theist can say about God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
You're obviously very intelligent.

[lucksack]

I'm pretty sure, that with the current knowledge about fish, it's likely that they do suffer and are much more advanced than previously thought. I think I posted some links to studies about this in an earlier thread about this subject on SMP.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

You are saying it is IMMORAL to NOT support an industry which breeds animals for extreme suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't say that. I made it very clear that people should oppose these people and support free range meat. It's the method of opposition that I find wrong.

[van_exel_fan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vegetarians push their beliefs the same way Christians push religion.

If it weren't for meat, none of us would be here!!!!!!!!!!!
That's just as good as what a theist can say about God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
You're obviously very intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

tyvmfu