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.

[sarabellum]

I am of two minds on this one....

I think it is wrong...(Basically it often violates the do unto others clause-IMO)

and...

I'm not sure it's sustainable...
I would assume the goal of Tyson Chickens board of directors is to get every human eating chicken 3 times a day, expanding the market share as far as possible...
Same goes for the cow, pig, turkey, fish, (pick your poison) industry...
As you get more people eating meat...
More cows need to be produced/sheltered/fed...

From a resources/land use stand point I have a hard time doing the math on this in the future....(I am hoping for free range, test-tube bacon)

On top of that everyone generally has an animal that for some reason they would not eat...
For me it was a lizard that I had in 3rd grade named Tiny...
We were friends and even if I was hungry, eating him would have been wrong to me...
No amount of convincing would ever change my mind....

Having got all that fluff and legal stuff out of the way....
The above statements are the part of my mind that I don't visit....
It's depressing...

The fact is, I'm a meat eater because I've noticed it's hard to get a good cheese burger when your a vegetarian....(Lizard burgers need not apply)

[McCulloch]

We are animals. Some animals eat only plants. They are called herbivores. Some animals derive energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue, whether through predation or scavenging. They are called carnivores. Omnivores are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source. Humans and chimpanzees are omnivores. It is how we evolved; it is our natural state.

So then, the question is why would anyone consider it unethical. Is it somehow morally superior for us to not eat the fish and let the bear kill it and eat it? Are we doing the chicken a great favor by letting the fox get it instead of us?

We should try to minimize the suffering of the animals we eat because it makes us feel better and to not do so desensitizes us to suffering in general.

[sarabellum]

We are animals. Some animals eat only plants. They are called herbivores. Some animals derive energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue, whether through predation or scavenging. They are called carnivores. Omnivores are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source. Humans and chimpanzees are omnivores. It is how we evolved; it is our natural state.

So then, the question is why would anyone consider it unethical. Is it somehow morally superior for us to not eat the fish and let the bear kill it and eat it? Are we doing the chicken a great favor by letting the fox get it instead of us?

We should try to minimize the suffering of the animals we eat because it makes us feel better and to not do so desensitizes us to suffering in general.

Greetings...

Bears are not my ethical role models...
Conversing with them about ethics is nearly pointless...
How they act does not effect me...
(Or my view on morality...)

I would assume that we are at a point in our evolution where we can choose how to eat (for some of us sadly this is not the case.) ,perhaps the choice of less harm is now the ethical one...

The bear is not allowed a choice, he is not welcome at Wallmart.(Even to purchase vegetables)

Food for thought...

[Darias]

Well, I eat meat all the time, specifically chicken. Eating meat does not bother me that much, given that the animals are treated humanely.

However the one thing that does kinda bother me, is pigs -- yes pigs.

I eat pork on occasion; it's not my favorite meat -- but... the fact that pigs can possess the intelligence of a 4 year old human bothers me a little.

And when people eat dolphins or monkeys in other countries, that's a bit disturbing too -- not because its a "different" kind of meat, but because those animals possess an awareness that is significantly higher than that of other animals, like dumb chickens.

So yes, contemplating the suffering of whatever I'm eating is a bit off-putting, but even more so is the idea that I'm eating something that once possessed significant intelligence.

[McCulloch]

I was not implying that bears are our ethical role models. My point is that the chicken will be killed and eaten by someone. If the fox doesn't then we will.

[sarabellum]

I've decided that I would get in a conversation of ethics with Smokey and Yogi the bear...

It might do me some good...

From an evolutionary sense yes it is not immoral to hunt...
Thats how we got here...

The fox uses his wits, teeth, claws and luck to eat his chicken....
His quota is based on the supply in the area...

For humans times have changed...

Most humans no longer need to actually find and then kill a chicken...
Our evolutionary relationship to hunting has changed...

I can hunt a chicken with a rocket launcher...
There is no hunt...

In fact they have factorys that contain the hunt...
A million chickens waiting to be gased...
Or machine chickens that lay eggs over and over...

It seems to me in nature you might run across a happy chicken, one that died of old age, avoiding the fox....
In a slaughter house not so much...

Meat isn't morally wrong but the conditions created in the "hunt" could be...
IMO..

Plus pigs are so smart...
I have one that poops in a litter box...

[McCulloch]

Smarter than the average bear!

I make it a point not to eat anyone with a name or who poops in our litter box. I don't use rocket launchers to procure food (or for anything else) and I do try not to kill (or have killed on my behalf) more than I need to eat. I eat happy free-range chickens and contented grass fed beef.

[Elias Jezebelsbane]

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.

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.

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

If you want to limit your diet, stick to what is biblically considered 'clean' verses 'unclean' meat.

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

[Q]

We are animals. Some animals eat only plants. They are called herbivores. Some animals derive energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue, whether through predation or scavenging. They are called carnivores. Omnivores are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source. Humans and chimpanzees are omnivores. It is how we evolved; it is our natural state.

So then, the question is why would anyone consider it unethical. Is it somehow morally superior for us to not eat the fish and let the bear kill it and eat it? Are we doing the chicken a great favor by letting the fox get it instead of us?

We should try to minimize the suffering of the animals we eat because it makes us feel better and to not do so desensitizes us to suffering in general.

First off, thank you for taking the time to respond McCulloch. I only peruse these boards a few times a year, but during those times I often enjoy reading your posts. I suppose my uneasiness with eating animals, as I suggested in my original post, is primarily with suffering. While you say it is natural to eat meat, it is not "natural" to kill animals the way we do- at least if by natural you mean the way humans did it for most of the last 200,000 years or so.

"We should try to minimize the suffering of animals." So then, just to be clear, it seems that you do agree that it is "wrong" (and I hesitate to use a perhaps loaded term like that) to eat animals when suffering was involved in their procurement?

As to whether it's wrong to kill animals for food when there is no suffering involved, I think I agree with you. I suppose one could convince me that if we don't need to kill something, we shouldn't. But I'll have to think more about that.