Eating Meat, Preference or Necessity?

AWoodside · #1 02-20-2007, 05:36 AM

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 · #2 02-20-2007, 05:49 AM

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 · #3 02-20-2007, 05:56 AM

[ 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 · #4 02-20-2007, 06:04 AM

[ 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? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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 the ultimate goal? (according to their website it cures cancer and AIDS [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] )

Phil153 · #5 02-20-2007, 06:32 AM

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 · #6 02-20-2007, 08:16 AM

[ 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 · #7 02-20-2007, 09:32 AM

[ 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 · #8 02-20-2007, 10:09 AM

[ 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 · #9 02-20-2007, 10:27 AM

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 · #10 02-20-2007, 10:30 AM

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.