Is killing non-human animals for food wrong?

[Q]

While I have never been a vegetarian in the past, I find it harder and harder to morally justify eating meat. I suppose on the most fundamental level I have a problem with living things suffering, a condition readily apparent with the treatment of many cows, chickens, etc.

(1) Should humans avoid eating meat when the circumstances surrounding the animals' habitat cause suffering (e.g., baby cows kept in small confined spaces for purposes of veal production)? If it is okay, why?

(2) If animals do not suffer during the process (free range farming perhaps?), is killing them for food okay? Why or why not?

Please avoid discussing whether you think meat is necessary or not to a healthy diet, as I am really not concerned with that issue.

[Q]

While I have never been a vegetarian in the past, I find it harder and harder to morally justify eating meat. I suppose on the most fundamental level I have a problem with living things suffering, a condition readily apparent with the treatment of many cows, chickens, etc.

(1) Should humans avoid eating meat when the circumstances surrounding the animals' habitat cause suffering (e.g., baby cows kept in small confined spaces for purposes of veal production)? If it is okay, why?

(2) If animals do not suffer during the process (free range farming perhaps?), is killing them for food okay? Why or why not?

Please avoid discussing whether you think meat is necessary or not to a healthy diet, as I am really not concerned with that issue.

So in answer to your topic, NO killing animals for food is not wrong. That is their purpose for existing.

Well I think I'll have to disagree that their "purpose" for existing is for us to eat them. I'm confident that they are here as a result of evolution, just like we are. I don't think they have some universal purpose (other than spreading their genes like every other species I suppose).

[Kuan]

I cannot believe I missed this! I like this topic!

Should humans avoid eating meat when the circumstances surrounding the animals' habitat cause suffering (e.g., baby cows kept in small confined spaces for purposes of veal production)? If it is okay, why?

Yes. Problem here is big though, it is extremley hard to live eating animals that have not been treated like the way you mention. I dont approve of the way they do it, but humans have overpopulated the earth (probably infestation) enough that we dont have enough room to raise free roaming cattle and the such and support our massive needs!

While I do eat animals who have suffered (excluding death,) I am also a hunter and I prefer a Elk that I worked to get rather than a burger from McDonalds (if thats even meat.) Humans are natural omnivores, so I leave it up to the person to define their own morals, lifestyle, and make their choices. In the end it will never really be objective. (At lest objectively proven.)

Should humans avoid eating meat when the circumstances surrounding the animals' habitat cause suffering (e.g., baby cows kept in small confined spaces for purposes of veal production)? If it is okay, why?

Hunting maybe? I myself try to avoid it as best I can, eating Kosher or hunting or whatever way presents itself but in the end sometimes I have no other alternative. Just make your own personal choice that will make you happy and quench your moral thirst.

As for the tag along question, I cant answer that, only you. The question is entirely subjective and hangs upon you to decide. Others can tell you what they believe but in the end its you.

[james.hoggatt]

I would argue that we have a moral obligation to be omnivores. Our place in the food chain requires that we eat meat or there would be huge and massive shifts in the way ecosystems work to the point that we would have mass destruction and extinction of many species, specifically husbandry animals.

This moral obligation derives itself in multiple forms:

The first:

A moral obligation a posteriori human civilization. Before we ever morally reasoned that animals could have a level of sentience that was near or approaching the level of sentience of humans, husbandry was created. This evolved several species of otherwise functional animals into husbandry formed, fairly inadequate creatures. The fact that we evolved these creatures in a way has made them part of the ecosystem whether the vegetarian likes it or not. Many types of carrion animals (a vital part of the ecosystem) now rely on things like mass herded cows, pigs, horses, and livestock in general to survive. In addition, many insect species require the the nutrients that they are now evolved to take in from these animals. This has a moral implication on two fronts:

1. We have a moral obligation not to manipulate the ecosystem and risk the damage of what is currently a stable system. The elimination of husbandry will either lead to a MASS increase in their breeding without a way to deal with their numbers, which would turn them into locust like swarms ravaging the countryside (since we can no longer kill them) or it we have to ensure that their species goes extinct. Both of these manifestations of reaching universal vegetarianism would have massive ethical impacts that outweigh the eating meat issue (I'll explain this later). However, the fact still remains that people have tried freeing domesticated animals into the wild, and they don't fare well at all.

2. We are morally obligated to ensure our 'ethical' choices does not cause extinction of animals that we are not as infatuated with, such as insects. Whether you like it or not, many insects now rely almost wholly on husbandry bred animals in order to survive, the elimination of these breeds of animals (which can only be checked by consumption in a moral vegetarian world) would also have far reaching effects on the ecosystem at large.

Then there is the argument a priori.

Humans are built to be omnivores, acting in a different way upsets the central balance. Humans survived because they became meat eaters before they developed agriculture. In order to argue that omnivorism is wrong, then you would have to argue that at the dawn of man, it was a more moral act to go extinct or let your family starve, than kill the bull and eat him. Humans can't digest a vast majority of plant life on the planet. In addition to that, many plants rely on humans as omnivores to spread their seeds and kill animals in order to provide more fertile ground.

In the end, in order for vegetarianism to be right you have to answer each of the above arguments.

In the end, a morality must be universal for you to command people to do it, and when you analyze the argument for universal vegetarianism then you can see that the mass extinction, uprooting of the ecosystem, the questions of whether pre-agricultural man were acting morally, are all stumbling blocks for the moral idea presented.

It seems the only cogent thing I could get out of this thread was that mistreatment of animals in terms of how we raise them is immoral. However, that is a wholly subjective concept that isn't logically provable as it requires a debate on sentience. My arguments above assume a very liberal sentience value to animals that I'm not even sure I agree with.

[scourge99]

(1) Should humans avoid eating meat when the circumstances surrounding the animals' habitat cause suffering (e.g., baby cows kept in small confined spaces for purposes of veal production)? If it is okay, why?

(2) If animals do not suffer during the process (free range farming perhaps?), is killing them for food okay? Why or why not?

To me the answer to these questions is very deep and involved.
Do animals have rights?
Do animals possess personhood?
If we didn't mass produce animals would it cause greater suffering?
What does all this imply about chimpanzees, pigs, and severely autistic and brain damaged humans?

Stanford provides great resources on a number of issues including this one. I highly recommend their site: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/


Personally it is my belief that only self-aware beings are worthy of moral consideration.

[Q]

Thanks for the link scourge. Very interesting. I guess my initial question would be: What is the most important thing we should be asking? We could ask whether animals have rights, whether we should only be concerned with self-aware animals (as you imply), or should we only be concerned with suffering? I concede that I haven't learned enough yet to fully justify my current thought process. But my gut reaction is that whether an animal has a nervous system, and thus can be subject to feeling pain, is the most important question. On some fundamental level, subjecting anything to suffering is my biggest problem with killing non-human animals.

[Ragna]

Thanks for the link scourge. Very interesting. I guess my initial question would be: What is the most important thing we should be asking? We could ask whether animals have rights, whether we should only be concerned with self-aware animals (as you imply), or should we only be concerned with suffering? I concede that I haven't learned enough yet to fully justify my current thought process. But my gut reaction is that whether an animal has a nervous system, and thus can be subject to feeling pain, is the most important question. On some fundamental level, subjecting anything to suffering is my biggest problem with killing non-human animals.

Would you then feel all right if they were killed in a way no pain was inflicted? That is certainly possible.

[Clownboat]

While I have never been a vegetarian in the past, I find it harder and harder to morally justify eating meat. I suppose on the most fundamental level I have a problem with living things suffering, a condition readily apparent with the treatment of many cows, chickens, etc.

(1) Should humans avoid eating meat when the circumstances surrounding the animals' habitat cause suffering (e.g., baby cows kept in small confined spaces for purposes of veal production)? If it is okay, why?

(2) If animals do not suffer during the process (free range farming perhaps?), is killing them for food okay? Why or why not?

Please avoid discussing whether you think meat is necessary or not to a healthy diet, as I am really not concerned with that issue.

If god did not want us to eat animals, he would not have made them out of meat.

The food chain may not seem fair, but it has existed for millions of years. I'm not so sure we should make changes. Should we try to make the rest of nature stop eating other animals too? Where would it stop?

[Woland]

While I have never been a vegetarian in the past, I find it harder and harder to morally justify eating meat. I suppose on the most fundamental level I have a problem with living things suffering, a condition readily apparent with the treatment of many cows, chickens, etc.

A while ago I started asking these questions.

Now I'm stuck being a vegetarian, and I don't think I can change anything to it. I know that some people revert to meat-eating, but I don't think it's likely to happen to me.

I used to really enjoy my bacon and meat in general.

Odd things happen sometimes when you think too long about things which are deemed (and have always been deemed) socially acceptable.

(1) Should humans avoid eating meat when the circumstances surrounding the animals' habitat cause suffering (e.g., baby cows kept in small confined spaces for purposes of veal production)? If it is okay, why?

I personally don't feel (anymore) like eating meat is all that great when you live in a country where you can easily afford a nutritious vegetarian diet and I'm ready to discuss these things with anyone who is willing to do so.

With that being said, it can sure be annoying to be bothered by self-rigtheous frustrated vegetarians who think they're better than anyone else.

People can make up their own minds about this issue.

However, I'll say this: I think that a bit more compassion (even towards other animals) sure wouldn't hurt in the 21st century.

Perhaps the mass butchering/enslaving of animals has a detrimental effect on human beings' perception of the adequacy of causing unnecessary harm to sentient (and often quite intelligent) creatures.

(2) If animals do not suffer during the process (free range farming perhaps?), is killing them for food okay? Why or why not?

I'd rather they not be killed if it's purely for our human enjoyment.

I still eat some cheese and eggs, yet I feel that the methods commonly used to produce these are inadequate.

My girlfriend says that she doesn't want anything killed that she wouldn't be ready to kill herself.
How many people would be ready to kill and gut their own meals nowadays?
If people had to kill their own meat, would meat consumption dwindle significantly?

An interesting thing can happen when you haven't eaten meat for a while. I tried to eat a steak the other day because it was either that or starve (at a corporate weekend) and I also to see how it felt/tasted. I was taken aback at how it very much tasted like "dead flesh". Felt like a cannibal or something. It simply wasn't enjoyable anymore, which was odd because I was sort of expecting to at least enjoy the taste.

Please avoid discussing whether you think meat is necessary or not to a healthy diet, as I am really not concerned with that issue.

But it's not!

Just kidding. Sort of.
Really though, it's not.

Vegetarians tend to live longer and healthier lives, apparently.

Plus, if you're like me, you get a certain amount of satisfaction and well-being. It always seemed "not so okay" to me to eat meat, but I went along with it and found it delicious until I stopped and thought about all of this for a few weeks.

Now I don't even think about meat anymore.

I feel more connected to nature than ever, which is sort of ironic since animals are mass-murdering each other by the billions each day.

Regards

-Woland

[Woland]

The eating of meat is a requirement of Yah. For example the passover lamb. There were strict laws on the treatment of food animals but they were created as food animals.

That's what the religious promotional tales claim, yes.

I've been, in the last few months, toying with the idea that perhaps Abrahamic religions are a major factor preventing vegetarianism from becoming truly mainstream.

After all, we do have billions of people running around absolutely convinced that this or that "GOD" gave them sentient animals (which very much feel sadness and pain) to butcher and enslave.

The mentality which allows this to happen on such a massive scale is very much entrenched in our Western societies. Atheist/theist, it probably doesn't make any significant difference. The odds are that, just like most other people, you eat meat and have always eaten meat.

It's hard to really question something that's so deeply entrenched in our daily routines and in our societies in general.

Rejection of meat is a rejection of the provision provided by Yah and is a demonic doctrine.

Really.

It's demonic to refrain from imposing needless harm on sentient creatures.

Should I be surprised that someone whose god concept is a bloodthirsty and genocidal egomaniac would find compassionate vegetarianism objectionable to the point of claiming it's a demonic doctrine?

One aspect of spiritual warfare will drain your body of certain proteins. Meat is one of the best sources to provide those proteins. The enemy wants people to be weak in spiritual warfare and pushes the vegetarian agenda.

A conspiracy theory involving vegetarianism?
And you claim this is to make people "spiritually weak"?

Now that's entertainment.

A healthy vegetarian diet provides the right level of complete proteins without the drawbacks of eating meat.

Do you have any evidence to present for any of your (extravagant) claims?

Who's this "enemy" you speak of?
Do you have any evidence that vetegarianism by itself leads to spiritual weakness or doesn't provide sufficient nutriments?

So in answer to your topic, NO killing animals for food is not wrong. That is their purpose for existing.

Another unsubstantiated claim.

-Woland

[dianaiad]

While I have never been a vegetarian in the past, I find it harder and harder to morally justify eating meat. I suppose on the most fundamental level I have a problem with living things suffering, a condition readily apparent with the treatment of many cows, chickens, etc.

(1) Should humans avoid eating meat when the circumstances surrounding the animals' habitat cause suffering (e.g., baby cows kept in small confined spaces for purposes of veal production)? If it is okay, why?

(2) If animals do not suffer during the process (free range farming perhaps?), is killing them for food okay? Why or why not?

Please avoid discussing whether you think meat is necessary or not to a healthy diet, as I am really not concerned with that issue.

My problem is...I'm an old farm girl. I have raised and killed chickens. I've taken my bow and arrow, shot my buck and yes...I ate him--or at least, a fair portion of him. I've also been stalked by a bear, and scared silly by that...and avoided getting bitten by a mojave green.

I find that I much prefer being at the top of the food chain. Think I'll stay there.

Diana