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.

[james.hoggatt]

I'm a vegetarian on moral grounds. Note however, that I do not condemn others as immoral for eating meat. I'm not one of the preachy annoying vegetarians.

I became one after talking to somebody I knew online who was vegan. I'd always been curious and then I met, and came to know fairly well, someone who was one, so we talked. What I found out was that it is a lot easier than you would think. If you know how to cook tofu, it can taste quite good (many people don't cook it well), and I regularly eat the same foods as I did before, and they taste just as good. Curry, chicken nuggets, hamburgers, chicken sandwiches, ribs, and on and on. These are, of course, non-meat versions. I'll admit they haven't pulled off just-as-good bacon yet, but maybe someday they will.

Now, regarding the morality of it, I'm a vegetarian, but not an idiot. If stranded somewhere and it was eat a pig or die...sorry, pig. My stance is that so long as I do not need to kill sentient being to survive, I shouldn't. It's that simple. beyond this, I very strongly disapprove of the way food animals are treated in this country - it's utterly disgusting. not only morally, but just plain disgusting in some cases.

For example, in many places, cows are packed so tightly they are standing ankle deep in feces their entire lives, until they are killed and ground up - without being washed - to be put into your food. Of course, then the ground up meat is sent through half a dozen chlorine baths to kill most of the germs, but even so, if you raise them properly, let them free range and eat grass instead of the corn we crazily overproduce and therefore put in every processed food, you will still end up with not only better quality meat, but safer meat as well. (watch food inc for my source. it shows a lot of stuff that will very much turn you off the food industry in America)

But even with meat that is raised and fed well, I still would hesitate to kill and eat them, because, as has been recently pointed out to me, I have a somewhat Buddhist view of the world (I refuse to squish bugs - I take them outside if they're bothering somebody)

Further, I would like to point out the that the argument against universal vegetarianism that speaks of the problems of suddenly releasing millions of cows and pigs into the wild in specious. nobody is suggesting we knock down the fences and walk away - it'll never happen like that anyway.

as a random note, land used to raise meat for human consumption is something like 17 times less efficiently used than land used to produce vegetables. This should be obvious - especially since we feed most of our livestock corn anyway. if you took the corn you are feeding to the cow and fed it to people, it would feed more people than the cow you're growing (not that I'm suggesting corn-only diets, only making a point).If we stopped eating meat, there would be more than enough food to end world hunger.


addition - vegetarianism is not exactly a lifestyle choice of the times. Buddha himself was a vegetarian, as are most Buddhists...

The issue isn't just the releasing of the animals, in order to stop suffering you would have to cull and commit (if you are as Buddhist as you say) a mass genocide of domesticated animals. Many times animals released from captivity simply starve to death because their evolutionary branch is codependent on humans. Also, elimination of this group would cause massive harm to ecosystems as you remove a vast chunk of the food chain. Veganism and vegitarianism is not universifiable thus cannot be a moral imperative. Moral mandates must be functional for the vast majority of people to follow.

[FinalEnigma]

I'm a vegetarian on moral grounds. Note however, that I do not condemn others as immoral for eating meat. I'm not one of the preachy annoying vegetarians.

I became one after talking to somebody I knew online who was vegan. I'd always been curious and then I met, and came to know fairly well, someone who was one, so we talked. What I found out was that it is a lot easier than you would think. If you know how to cook tofu, it can taste quite good (many people don't cook it well), and I regularly eat the same foods as I did before, and they taste just as good. Curry, chicken nuggets, hamburgers, chicken sandwiches, ribs, and on and on. These are, of course, non-meat versions. I'll admit they haven't pulled off just-as-good bacon yet, but maybe someday they will.

Now, regarding the morality of it, I'm a vegetarian, but not an idiot. If stranded somewhere and it was eat a pig or die...sorry, pig. My stance is that so long as I do not need to kill sentient being to survive, I shouldn't. It's that simple. beyond this, I very strongly disapprove of the way food animals are treated in this country - it's utterly disgusting. not only morally, but just plain disgusting in some cases.

For example, in many places, cows are packed so tightly they are standing ankle deep in feces their entire lives, until they are killed and ground up - without being washed - to be put into your food. Of course, then the ground up meat is sent through half a dozen chlorine baths to kill most of the germs, but even so, if you raise them properly, let them free range and eat grass instead of the corn we crazily overproduce and therefore put in every processed food, you will still end up with not only better quality meat, but safer meat as well. (watch food inc for my source. it shows a lot of stuff that will very much turn you off the food industry in America)

But even with meat that is raised and fed well, I still would hesitate to kill and eat them, because, as has been recently pointed out to me, I have a somewhat Buddhist view of the world (I refuse to squish bugs - I take them outside if they're bothering somebody)

Further, I would like to point out the that the argument against universal vegetarianism that speaks of the problems of suddenly releasing millions of cows and pigs into the wild in specious. nobody is suggesting we knock down the fences and walk away - it'll never happen like that anyway.

as a random note, land used to raise meat for human consumption is something like 17 times less efficiently used than land used to produce vegetables. This should be obvious - especially since we feed most of our livestock corn anyway. if you took the corn you are feeding to the cow and fed it to people, it would feed more people than the cow you're growing (not that I'm suggesting corn-only diets, only making a point).If we stopped eating meat, there would be more than enough food to end world hunger.


addition - vegetarianism is not exactly a lifestyle choice of the times. Buddha himself was a vegetarian, as are most Buddhists...

The issue isn't just the releasing of the animals, in order to stop suffering you would have to cull and commit (if you are as Buddhist as you say) a mass genocide of domesticated animals. Many times animals released from captivity simply starve to death because their evolutionary branch is codependent on humans. Also, elimination of this group would cause massive harm to ecosystems as you remove a vast chunk of the food chain. Veganism and vegitarianism is not universifiable thus cannot be a moral imperative. Moral mandates must be functional for the vast majority of people to follow.

To be clear, I'm not actually a Buddhist, I simply have a somewhat Buddhist view of not killing things.

Further, your objection is ridiculous, because nobody proposes that everyone becomes vegetarian tomorrow. This is clearly not going to happen, and you are arguing against a strawman. if universal vegetarianism happened, it would take at the absolute minimum 2 human generations, probably a lot more. Barring some catastrophic event to our food industry, there would be no massive culling of livestock animals - more like a slow decline of the demand for meat, and thus the production of meat.

as a note, I have not researched the impact of universal vegetarianism (although, given the scenario I present, I highly doubt it would be as catastrophic as you imply), and therefore I will not argue here that it should happen. I'll discuss it with you, and if you can show me evidence that it would be somehow a bad thing, then perhaps you can shape my opinion of the matter.

[james.hoggatt]

I'm a vegetarian on moral grounds. Note however, that I do not condemn others as immoral for eating meat. I'm not one of the preachy annoying vegetarians.

I became one after talking to somebody I knew online who was vegan. I'd always been curious and then I met, and came to know fairly well, someone who was one, so we talked. What I found out was that it is a lot easier than you would think. If you know how to cook tofu, it can taste quite good (many people don't cook it well), and I regularly eat the same foods as I did before, and they taste just as good. Curry, chicken nuggets, hamburgers, chicken sandwiches, ribs, and on and on. These are, of course, non-meat versions. I'll admit they haven't pulled off just-as-good bacon yet, but maybe someday they will.

Now, regarding the morality of it, I'm a vegetarian, but not an idiot. If stranded somewhere and it was eat a pig or die...sorry, pig. My stance is that so long as I do not need to kill sentient being to survive, I shouldn't. It's that simple. beyond this, I very strongly disapprove of the way food animals are treated in this country - it's utterly disgusting. not only morally, but just plain disgusting in some cases.

For example, in many places, cows are packed so tightly they are standing ankle deep in feces their entire lives, until they are killed and ground up - without being washed - to be put into your food. Of course, then the ground up meat is sent through half a dozen chlorine baths to kill most of the germs, but even so, if you raise them properly, let them free range and eat grass instead of the corn we crazily overproduce and therefore put in every processed food, you will still end up with not only better quality meat, but safer meat as well. (watch food inc for my source. it shows a lot of stuff that will very much turn you off the food industry in America)

But even with meat that is raised and fed well, I still would hesitate to kill and eat them, because, as has been recently pointed out to me, I have a somewhat Buddhist view of the world (I refuse to squish bugs - I take them outside if they're bothering somebody)

Further, I would like to point out the that the argument against universal vegetarianism that speaks of the problems of suddenly releasing millions of cows and pigs into the wild in specious. nobody is suggesting we knock down the fences and walk away - it'll never happen like that anyway.

as a random note, land used to raise meat for human consumption is something like 17 times less efficiently used than land used to produce vegetables. This should be obvious - especially since we feed most of our livestock corn anyway. if you took the corn you are feeding to the cow and fed it to people, it would feed more people than the cow you're growing (not that I'm suggesting corn-only diets, only making a point).If we stopped eating meat, there would be more than enough food to end world hunger.


addition - vegetarianism is not exactly a lifestyle choice of the times. Buddha himself was a vegetarian, as are most Buddhists...

The issue isn't just the releasing of the animals, in order to stop suffering you would have to cull and commit (if you are as Buddhist as you say) a mass genocide of domesticated animals. Many times animals released from captivity simply starve to death because their evolutionary branch is codependent on humans. Also, elimination of this group would cause massive harm to ecosystems as you remove a vast chunk of the food chain. Veganism and vegitarianism is not universifiable thus cannot be a moral imperative. Moral mandates must be functional for the vast majority of people to follow.

To be clear, I'm not actually a Buddhist, I simply have a somewhat Buddhist view of not killing things.

Further, your objection is ridiculous, because nobody proposes that everyone becomes vegetarian tomorrow. This is clearly not going to happen, and you are arguing against a strawman. if universal vegetarianism happened, it would take at the absolute minimum 2 human generations, probably a lot more. Barring some catastrophic event to our food industry, there would be no massive culling of livestock animals - more like a slow decline of the demand for meat, and thus the production of meat.

as a note, I have not researched the impact of universal vegetarianism (although, given the scenario I present, I highly doubt it would be as catastrophic as you imply), and therefore I will not argue here that it should happen. I'll discuss it with you, and if you can show me evidence that it would be somehow a bad thing, then perhaps you can shape my opinion of the matter.

The OP is a moral question so I answer it with moral theory. Even if it never came about that everyone shifted to vegetarianism in order to claim it as the only moral lifestyle (which the OP posits) then you would have to morally reject the other lifestyles. I argue (from morality) that in order to do such, you would have to be able to universally apply it to all humans, and that if all humans became vegetarians it would still have to give the same moral impacts that a few people being vegetarian does. I posit that it doesn't. I answer this fully and at length in my post previous to the one you note. Feel free to go back and read it. Again, this is a moral theory objection.

[Deadclown]

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.

I will offer my take on it and rationalization.

1) It is always morally wrong to cause suffering when there is no need for it. So some farming practices are morally objectionable regardless of whether we become hypocrites by enjoying the ends of the process.

2) It is less morally objectionable than needless suffering. There are practices that greatly reduce or eliminate suffering up until the point of death which is usually immediate and relatively painless. When the alternative is a population with greater degrees of human suffering and starvation, not to mention inadequate diets during formative years, it is certainly a lesser of two evils.

Like most morally questionable actions, it comes down to a choice between the lesser of two evils. Cheap plentiful food for a human populace that relies on it is preferable to a complete prevention of all animal suffering, as there would be greater human suffering without it. We should however, respect our food sources and make their life/death as painless and pleasant as we can reasonably manage in order to be as moral as possible.

If it was possible to create an option that would fulfill all dietary requirements completely while causing no death or suffering, that would be the most moral option. However, vegetarianism is not truly that option in the way that many people view it. I grew up around farms, and there were many field animals killed (or those whose parents were killed and they then left to starve) every year in the mass production of food in this manner (this also assumes that we ignore the fact that we are then killing plants to survive). The 'most' moral choice would be to grow and harvest our own organically produced crops in small personal gardens where suffering can be minimized. This however is not realistic in our modern society where mass production is needed to fulfill the needs of large centralized populations.

That all being said, human beings, when it comes to something pleasurable that requires distant non-personal non-human suffering, will tend to go for the pleasure. We also become desensitized to suffering, as shown by those who actually have routinely slaughtered their own livestock for food.

[FinalEnigma]

The OP is a moral question so I answer it with moral theory. Even if it never came about that everyone shifted to vegetarianism in order to claim it as the only moral lifestyle (which the OP posits) then you would have to morally reject the other lifestyles. I argue (from morality) that in order to do such, you would have to be able to universally apply it to all humans, and that if all humans became vegetarians it would still have to give the same moral impacts that a few people being vegetarian does. I posit that it doesn't. I answer this fully and at length in my post previous to the one you note. Feel free to go back and read it. Again, this is a moral theory objection.

I think I disagree with the italicized portion, and the bolded portion, but I'm not prepared to argue the points.

[Mindlessfollower]

For what it is worth, here is my two cents on the subject.

Though I do not subscribe to the notion that we are created in the image of some invisible toy maker, I do however fully believe we are not truly animals either. I know science disagrees with me. But I don’t care.

We a truly something different from those critters around us and as such have a twofold responsibility o protect and provide for them as the dominant creature on Earth. Does this mean we cannot use them for sustenance? Nope. It should however be done civilly. There is no reason to torture an animal before you kill it.

I am an avid hunter of deer, turkey and ducks. I do not keep antlers or heads and as such I have the ability to end a deer’s suffering in the first strike as opposed to watching it run off and die. Most hunters shoot in the chest region to bring down the heart and lungs. I shoot the head. It drops. It is dead. It is over. No pain… no suffering.

Unfortunately there is no such tactic being administered in slaughter houses. In fact there has been an outbreak of video proofs on animal abuse in these places. Not to mention the issues with antibiotics, hormones and poor living conditions. The rampant disregard mankind has for it’s food sources is disturbingly apparent in this situation. Regardless of there being a God given responsibility or a nature stewardship bestowed upon us, we are failing.

We are omnivores and as such we need not fail. We cannot afford to do such; we need to not do such. We need to eat multiple food sources and to do so we need to do it with a level of accountability that we currently seem to lack or ignore.

Despite what some evangelistic scientists and nutritionist will claim, we need certain things from both sides of the argument. We need meat. We need vegetables. To disregard what our bodies have evolved into or been designed to need is the paragon of arrogant ignorance.

We each need to make our own decision as to what we put into our bodies. If you should choose to become a vegetarian then that is fine. Your body will have to adjust to doing without the necessities that meat provides. If you decide to do without meat then your body will suffer the consequences of your choice. To borrow from theism, “the devil lives in the extremes.�

The best approach is by far, informed and intelligent decision making about the food you buy and where you get it from. Buy your meats from local farmers and butcher shops. Don’t buy it from chain stores. Grow your own vegetables. Even if you disagree with the belief systems of theists don’t underestimate the good that can come from some of their practices. I buy kosher foods on a regular basis. I buy their milk and some of their meats. I also deal with some Amish that live down the road from me. I get most of my poultry and eggs from them. This way I get foods that I know have been raised well and killed humanely. I can rest each night with a satisfied belly and content conscious.

Good luck in your discernment of your options and the choices that your searching brings you to.

[Angel song]

From a Biblical perspective (Gen 1:29), prior to The Fall, both humankind and animals were only given seed-bearing plants and fruit trees for food and grass and plants for animals. Meat-eating was a concession that was only granted after Adam and Eve's fall from grace but was not included originally .

Therefore, I can see a Biblical argument for following a vegetarian diet.

[Clownboat]

From a Biblical perspective (Gen 1:29), prior to The Fall, both humankind and animals were only given seed-bearing plants and fruit trees for food and grass and plants for animals. Meat-eating was a concession that was only granted after Adam and Eve's fall from grace but was not included originally .

Therefore, I can see a Biblical argument for following a vegetarian diet.

How can you see a Biblical argument for following a vegetarian diet when just above you stated that there is a concession for eating meat?

If there is a concession for eating meat, how do you make an argument for a vegetarian diet?

Would the argument be:
According to the Bible, it is ok to eat meat, and you should not eat meat.

If so, this is par for the course IMO because a person can use the Bible to make it say almost anything.

[Philbert]

Is killing non-human animals for food wrong?

Is it wrong? I don't know.

Is it smart? No, it's not.

[woodpen]

Is killing non-human animals for food wrong?

Is it wrong? I don't know.

Is it smart? No, it's not.

Well it's smarter than trying to eat a cow while it's still alive, that would be really dumb.