Animal Welfare

[Le Stu]

Well first of all, go back about 10 pages to read what I have already said about the naturalistic fallacy. A case could be made for war being inherent ergo natural, but that wouldn't make it moral. The point is that we are out of the grip of the evolutionary struggle and therefore do not have to act according to the laws of the jungle, but can decide rationaly what is the best thing to do. This point is really fucking tired by the way.

Let's say that it was proved that having a human slave was proved to be better for your health and well being, would that hold any water in the argument? Would that make you into some kind of a martyr for not having a slave?

Homo Homo Sapiens? I think that's just your species mate!

Haha. We are not 'out of the grip of the evolutionary struggle' what the hell are you talking about? Just because you currently enjoy the benefits of living in the oil era, do not kid yourself that this is going to last. I'd like to see you keep your high and mighty morals when you're sitting hungry with nothing but grassland and ruminants on the go.

As for keeping a slave. Well, I suppose it would depend on the terms of his or her bondage if necessity was a given. If they're treated well and perhaps have an opportunity to become free men in future then I might not have a problem with it.

[Skubbs]

The thing I don't get with a lot of vegetarians is that they find the way animals are killed for meat repulsive (granted I don't like thinking about that, not everyone's a die-hard meat eater), but they don't think that cows having their nipples pulled and sucked on for milk disgusting? I don't drink milk because knowing where it comes from grosses me out. The issue of breastfeeding grosses me out.

The argument for "eating meat is natural, we are capable of eating meat as we are omnivores" being rejected by people saying "we have evolved, there is no need to harm animals for food" could be used for breastfeeding.

Kids sucking on the tits of their mother's was necessary once upon a time but haven't we evolved so what's the need for breastfeeding nowadays?

Oh, it provides nutrients required, well what about meat? As previously pointed out, vegetarians and vegans have to be careful.

A lot of vegetarians I know are quite pushy about their chosen diet, and do use only organic food, wear organically grown cotton clothing, recycle religiously, give their children wooden toys instead of the mass-produced plastic ones, breastfeed and so on.

(yes, yes, I know, not the most brilliant or eloquent of arguements but oh well)

[scottyboy]

Cheers min!

First, I'd like to declare that I am looking in to one specific claim that's been made once or twice throughout this thread, that vegan diets are universally supported by dietary associations etc. This doesn't tally with my experience, that a healthy diet is described to include diary products, fish and meat. I think this is relevant, because of the issue of supplementation - Is a supplemented diet a natural one? It interests me because one aspect of the moral argument would revolve around what we, as a species, are adapted to eat: Just because we have worked out how, in the developed world, to bypass our need for meat by artificial supplementation doesn't make veganism universally applicable from a moral aspect: We couldn't expect people in less Holland-and-Barrett infested areas of the world to survive healthily without utilising meat or diary, for example, nor could we look down upon them as less moral beings as a result. Even within the UK, does everyone have the means to support a vegan diet when a balanced diet can be obtained using cheap meat and diary products? I'm curious about what moral superiority this creates, to be blunt.

I've been waiting for someone to make this point. It's all very well recommending supplements but in the developing world (most of humanity, no?) it's not an option, Most people in the world don't have the luxury of deciding what they can and cannot eat. Even if and when they do, who's going to tell those to whom vegetarianism is a largely alien concept: "hey guys your culture is totally immoral, stop eating meat cause us culturally and morally superior Westerners say so"?

[Shaki]

There is an objective moral truth. Not a Platonic "Theory of Ideas" style "out there" morality, but a simple, objective, human, logical truth.

No there isn't.

[Rob_86]

Haven't checked this thread since yesterday, am pleasantly surprised with it's civil manner to say the least - well done guys.

Have a couple of points to add though. On the nutrition point, I eat a vegan diet and have researched it since going vegan and find nothing nutritionally suspect about it. I did go vegan originally as a moral choice, but nutritionally speaking what is missing? Calcium and omega 3 are of course the bigger myths, as calcium is largely unusable to a human being from dairy products (that 'calcium paradox' thing that the WHO noticed) and is present in loads of veggies, as is omega 3. Protein of course is found in higher concentrations in things like soya beans than all types of meat (except duck meat I think...).

But moreover my concern nutritionally is with the problems of vegan and non-vegan diets (as both could fulfil nutritional requirements with perfect balances). Vegan diets are low in Vit B12, which is something non-vegan diets are often low in too though - the only two folk I know who suffered from B12 deficiency (one was hospitalised) were avid meat eaters. However the non-vegan diets seem to have more disadvantages. Our intestines don't digest meat particularly well as they are too long, hence the presence of beef for prolonged periods etc, which is what they think causes colon cancer (though this isn't fully researched I stress, it's pretty convincing). The links between dairy and breast/prostate cancer are pretty strong (not like your average sensationalised news story), in fact I think Jane Plant did studies in which 80% of terminal breast cancers go into remission on vegan diets... And obviously there is heart disease caused by cholesterol, which you don't find on a vegan diet. This is of course based on excess, but any cholesterol is going to clog up your arteries which isn't particularly nice, and it will have some effect on your health wouldn't it?

Anyway, thats my thoughts on nutrition. Ethics-wise, this just seems so straight forward to me. Regardless of what we did in thr past, or what we think our bodies were built to do, ethics still exist. Some would say we were built to spread our seed as much as possible, which would suggest rape is moral, which of course it isn't. With animal use, it's a case of need. We live in a society where we don't need to eat animals to live healthily, so why do we? Why should it be only other humans that were interested in treating well? There are probably situations which humans will need to eat other humans in the future (plane crashes in deolate climates for instance) but this doesn't make it right for us to kill and eat humans now. Not even those humans with the mental capacity of pigs, so why is it okay to kill and eat the pigs? If nutritionally speaking there is no large issue, then morally speaking we're implored to respect the fact that these creatures are individuals, and hence should be left to live their lives.

[KimyReizeger]

It's all very well recommending supplements but in the developing world (most of humanity, no?) it's not an option, Most people in the world don't have the luxury of deciding what they can and cannot eat. "?

Who said anything about going around enforcing vegan diets on the world's poor? We in Scotland currently live in wealth, something which affords the opportunity us to explore moral grey areas such as this. Le Stu, should we really be anticipating some kind of total societal breakdown in the future where the human species regresses several thousand years, leaving us cold on the ground, fighting one another for scraps of meat? I don't think so. We should be living and acting on the basis of what is happening right now and taking advantage of our relative wealth and freedom to explore new things.

[paranoid]

moral grey areas such as this.

This isn't a "moral grey area". Morality is subjective, and as such there isn't a grey area, there is black and white. Just because the morals of vegans don't match those of normal people, does not mean it is a grey area.

Vegans can go on and on about slavery, eating the mentally disabled and all of the other gems we've seen in here, but end of the line, they are not going to change anyone's mind about eating meat. They might tip someone who has the misguided view that by stopping eating meat they will save animals over to veggie/vegan ways, but that is about it.

[Shaki]

This isn't a "moral grey area". Morality is subjective, and as such there isn't a grey area, there is black and white. Just because the morals of vegans don't match those of normal people, does not mean it is a grey area.

Vegans can go on and on about slavery, eating the mentally disabled and all of the other gems we've seen in here, but end of the line, they are not going to change anyone's mind about eating meat. They might tip someone who has the misguided view that by stopping eating meat they will save animals over to veggie/vegan ways, but that is about it.

I'm happier with it being a moral grey area rather than there being one moral truth!

[paranoid]

We should be living and acting on the basis of what is happening right now and taking advantage of our relative wealth and freedom to explore new things.

But what if, shock horror, people are comfortable, physically, mentally and morally with eating meat, and couldn't give 2 hoots about changing their diet. Like 90-odd% of people are? Shouldn't they be left in peace, without being made to feel bullied for being immoral by vegans/veggies.

Let sleeping dogs lie and all that (unless that psycho with the blowtorch is hanging around).

[Le Stu]

Who said anything about going around enforcing vegan diets on the world's poor? We in Scotland currently live in wealth, something which affords the opportunity us to explore moral grey areas such as this. Le Stu, should we really be anticipating some kind of total societal breakdown in the future where the human species regresses several thousand years, leaving us cold on the ground, fighting one another for scraps of meat? I don't think so. We should be living and acting on the basis of what is happening right now and taking advantage of our relative wealth and freedom to explore new things.

I've studied the Peak Oil stuff and we are definitely going to see a sharp drop in availability of hydro-carbon fossil fuels in our medium term future. The implications of this for our arable crop yields and food imports are extremely serious. The throwaway statistic is that it takes ten calories of hydrocarbon fuel to produce one calorie of food.

Add to that the current shift of economic power from West to East, and the accompanying loss of purchasing power, and we may well be forced back to more localised food consumption and traditional farming methods in the future as developing nations have no choice in right now. However, I too hope that we use this time top develop enough innovation in alternative energies and farming techniques to maintain some level of our current standards of living, in future.

The argument TheTickingTime-Bomb seems to be making is that morality is rigid. I disagree and say it is movable by changes in circumstance. We take an awful lot for granted.

[paranoid]

I'm happier with it being a moral grey area rather than there being one moral truth!

You missed my point. Morals are subjective. For each person there is a black and white moral stance for the majority of things. It is either morally ok, hunky dory and just super; or it isn't. It only gets grey when you line up the moral compass of the two sides, as the viewpoints are different.

[Teabags]

Just because the morals of vegans don't match those of normal people

Lollerskates

[KimyReizeger]

I've studied the Peak Oil stuff and we are definitely going to see a sharp drop in availability of hydro-carbon fossil fuels in our medium term future. The implications of this for our arable crop yields and food imports are extremely serious. The throwaway statistic is that it takes ten calories of hydrocarbon fuel to produce one calorie of food.

Add to that the current shift of economic power from West to East, and the accompanying loss of purchasing power, and we may well be forced back to more localised food consumption and traditional farming methods in the future as developing nations have no choice in right now. However, I too hope that we use this time top develop enough innovation in alternative energies and farming techniques to maintain some level of our current standards of living, in future..

Potential economic considerations in the future do little to halt the debate we can have about the subject right now. I accept vastly fluctuating economic tides (and I mean vastly, not simply us getting a bit poorer) could turn this debate on its head.

But what if, shock horror, people are comfortable, physically, mentally and morally with eating meat, and couldn't give 2 hoots about changing their diet. Like 90-odd% of people are? Shouldn't they be left in peace, without being made to feel bullied for being immoral by vegans/veggies

Quite why you should be left in peace I don't understand. We are a society who live together, move together, represent and influence one another. Besides, asking to be 'left alone' when you yourself 'don't leave animals alone', to put it simply, is a bit rich really. Whenever your actions are impinging upon another's you deserve to justify them and be held to account for them; have a quick look at JS Mill's theory of liberty and the harm principle:

The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself

Which is why Alkaline's weird smoking comment is for all realistic purposes irrelevant because smokers these days only damage themselves.

[Shaki]

You missed my point. Morals are subjective. For each person there is a black and white moral stance for the majority of things. It is either morally ok, hunky dory and just super; or it isn't. It only gets grey when you line up the moral compass of the two sides, as the viewpoints are different.

I didn't miss your point. I was just saying that I am happier treating it as a moral grey area rather than what someone had previously said: that there is one unarguable moral truth for all.

I don't beleive anyone is born with black and white morals, they are developed throughout a person's life dependent on a number of variables and can be subject to change, so I don't agree with you either.

[paranoid]

Quite why you should be left in peace I don't understand. We are a society who live together, move together, represent and influence one another. Besides, asking to be 'left alone' when you yourself 'don't leave animals alone', to put it simply, is a bit rich really. Whenever your actions are impinging upon another's you deserve to justify them and be held to account for them; have a quick look at JS Mill's theory of liberty and the harm principle:

Get off your bloody high horse. You are telling me that because I went out and ate a steak last night, my actions impinged upon another's. Who's actions did I impinge upon exactly? The waiter, the other customers? All I did was eat the bloody thing, I didn't throw it round the room and chat.

As I see it, cow was bred to become food > slaughterhouse > butcher > kitchen > plate. Simple, morality-safe beefy goodness.

What do I have accountablity for? Enjoying eating the flesh of an animal that was bred for that purpose?

Who did I harm? You will claim I harmed myself, getting cancer, syphilis and god only knows what else, but who else was harmed in my eating a steak last night? A straight answer would be good, without the side order of high-and-mighty this time.

[Rob_86]

But what if, shock horror, people are comfortable, physically, mentally and morally with eating meat, and couldn't give 2 hoots about changing their diet. Like 90-odd% of people are? Shouldn't they be left in peace, without being made to feel bullied for being immoral by vegans/veggies.

Let sleeping dogs lie and all that (unless that psycho with the blowtorch is hanging around).

It's all very well to say people can believe what they want, but the problem is when that starts impacting on other individuals - whether it has been done like this for thousands of years or not. The case for animal rights, whether it be on the issue of meat eating, pets, vivisection etc, poses vital questions to us all - and correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the great advantages of living in a civilised society is that morality can develop. It is an obligation every one has, in my opinion, to 'preach' flaws in people's/society's reasoning when it comes to ethical issues, and I really hate this idea that people should be left alone to think whatever they like. I mean it's true, people have a right to do what they like, but not when it harms others needlessly.

[paranoid]

It's all very well to say people can believe what they want, but the problem is when that starts impacting on other individuals - whether it has been done like this for thousands of years or not. The case for animal rights, whether it be on the issue of meat eating, pets, vivisection etc, poses vital questions to us all - and correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the great advantages of living in a civilised society is that morality can develop. It is an obligation every one has, in my opinion, to 'preach' flaws in people's/society's reasoning when it comes to ethical issues, and I really hate this idea that people should be left alone to think whatever they like. I mean it's true, people have a right to do what they like, but not when it harms others needlessly.

Same question to you - Who do I harm when I eat meat?

[Rob_86]

I didn't miss your point. I was just saying that I am happier treating it as a moral grey area rather than what someone had previously said: that there is one unarguable moral truth for all.

I don't beleive anyone is born with black and white morals, they are developed throughout a person's life dependent on a number of variables and can be subject to change, so I don't agree with you either.

I think everyone could begin to agree that morality is subjective to a degree. But when we all have shared moral bases, it becomes easy to develop shared moral extensions. I think Alkaline said he didn't mind eating humans, so presumably wouldn't mind the idea of needless harm towards them, but most of us would, and so therefore can reason why this is and develop from that point. It is fairly easy to see why we value humans in this way, and I think realistically speaking other animals share many of the attributes needed to be party to at least some rights etc.

[Rob_86]

Same question to you - Who do I harm when I eat meat?

Well it's a question of what harm would be there if you didn't do it, which in a supply-demand led society is significant. We can all lay happily in our beds at night thinking we don't abuse anyone (well, most of us I hope), but our financial choices are our responsibility too. If people didn't demand meat, it wouldn't be produced. Animals are persons who live and experience their own life, so whoever's body you've paid to eat is the 'who' which you are harming.

[scottyboy]

Who said anything about going around enforcing vegan diets on the world's poor? We in Scotland currently live in wealth, something which affords the opportunity us to explore moral grey areas such as this. Le Stu, should we really be anticipating some kind of total societal breakdown in the future where the human species regresses several thousand years, leaving us cold on the ground, fighting one another for scraps of meat? I don't think so. We should be living and acting on the basis of what is happening right now and taking advantage of our relative wealth and freedom to explore new things.

When I see statements like "it is no longer necessary for humans to eat meat" I take it to mean all humans. Your comment about wealth affording "the opportunity to explore moral grey areas" just seems to reinforce the notion that rich Western culture is somehow morally and culturally superior to others.

[paranoid]

Well it's a question of what harm would be there if you didn't do it, which in a supply-demand led society is significant. We can all lay happily in our beds at night thinking we don't abuse anyone (well, most of us I hope), but our financial choices are our responsibility too. If people didn't demand meat, it wouldn't be produced. Animals are persons who live and experience their own life, so whoever's body you've paid to eat is the 'who' which you are harming.

So the "people" I harm are actually the animals bred for the purpose of food? Again, I'm not seeing how my eating a steak is harming anyone.

Cows are beefy crops, simple as that. I'm all for them being treated well and fairly while they are alive, but they are bred for the purpose of being food, and food they shall become.

[Alkaline]

Which is why Alkaline's weird smoking comment is for all realistic purposes irrelevant because smokers these days only damage themselves.

They don't though. The industry they support harms the environment and those involved in it. The emotional harm done to family members when someone succumbs to a smoking related illness a good 20 years earlier than they might naturally and the emotional harm caring for someone you love that suffers from smoking related cancers should not be dismissed in such a blase manner. The physical repercussions of passive smoking by family members is scientifically proven. I'm afraid your argument for that holds no water. There is a moral reason for people not to smoke.

[Shaki]

I think everyone could begin to agree that morality is subjective to a degree. But when we all have shared moral bases, it becomes easy to develop shared moral extensions. I think Alkaline said he didn't mind eating humans, so presumably wouldn't mind the idea of needless harm towards them, but most of us would, and so therefore can reason why this is and develop from that point. It is fairly easy to see why we value humans in this way, and I think realistically speaking other animals share many of the attributes needed to be party to at least some rights etc.

I agree entirely (although I don't think Alkaline really has any sort of immoral desire for devouring human flesh!). Morality has evolved in societies and has done so at a much faster rate in the relatively recent past.

[Alkaline]

. I think Alkaline said he didn't mind eating humans, so presumably wouldn't mind the idea of needless harm towards them, but most of us would, and so therefore can reason why this is and develop from that point.

Errr, i did qualify it by saying it depended on the circumstances. I'm not out with a steak knife on a nightly basis offing people to fix a habit. If there was a scenario where human flesh was the only option i wouldn't have a problem eating or killing to get it. That doesn't mean i think that people should be subjected to needless harm. What sort of skewed logic led you to make that deduction?

[Neil]

Cows are beefy crops, simple as that. I'm all for them being treated well and fairly while they are alive, but they are bred for the purpose of being food, and food they shall become.

Exactly. Or if not food, we'll at least keep them for milking and/or breeding.

I think it is worth reminding people that all domesticated animals would struggle to survive without some degree of human care and supervision. So for those of you who would like to see an end of farming cattle then you would be also be inadvertently denying their right to survive as a species. Is that moral?