Animal Welfare

[Stichman]

Being food on a plate is an example of unnecessary pain because meat-eating isn't a necessity in our society. If you don't think a cow should suffer unnecessary pain why are you eating them? What you mean is that you're not sufficiently bothered by the pain inflicted on a cow to stop eating meat.

We clearly differ over what we describe as 'unnecessary.' It is possible for me to kill an animal in order to eat it whilst simultaneously ensuring that animal doesn't experience unnecessary pain.

Nothing I'm writing really reflects my own beliefs or personal practices. I had a steak tonight for example. I've just stated, albeitly with little eloquence, some of the arguments against eating-meat, for which I genuinely think there has been no satisfactory answer.

I'm sorry if I haven't stated the recognised reasons why it's fine to eat meat. I've just attempted to state why I personally eat meat. Maybe, as a fellow meat-eater, you could enlighten me?

Interestingly, I don't think there have been any satisfactory answers as to why I shouldn't eat meat. This is especially important because apparently I'm the one that needs to be persuaded. I couldn't care less if someone is a vegan, I just take issue with being told I should be one, or it is somehow 'wrong' to eat meat. There has been no argument in this thread that would even begin to make me think about not eating meat. Maybe we're all just a bit pish at arguing.

[nullmouse]

Yes, and still waiting for a good answer. And genuinely hoping to hear one so I can go on eating steaks without pesky conscience kicking in! I'd disagree speciesism was deconstructed in the way you've suggested.

I think it's clear from this thread that your decision to eat meat comes down to whether you think there is any unnecessary suffering, not whether or not you'd eat a disabled person. It is about us exploiting (rightly or wrongly) another species for our benefit. The negative sides of eating meat and diary are overplayed, much as the negative effects of eating a vegan diet are overplayed, and we get the benefit of being morally superior to the majority of the world by having the affluence and availability to the products required to eat a healthy diet with meat and dairy included or not.

If it helps, I eat meat because I am satisfied (and I know people will disagree with this, but my experience and opinions are allowed to differ) that welfare of the animals is taken in to consideration. I am happy that I can get the nutrients, minerals and protein I require by eating a balanced diet containing fruit, veg, meat and diary with the minimal of suffering. I also think that, as a society, eating animals that we have domesticated and cultured for millenia has become an intrinsic part of our economy and welfare of many that it is more than just an issue of animal suffering. I understand that many of the pro-vegan arguments come hand-in-hand with very strong political opinions, and that this is probably not a very popular view as a result - But where one person may see a poltical or societal ideal, I see the abolition of multiple species intrinsically linked to the livelihood of billions across the world.

And, to recap something I said a few pages ago, I see a lack of applicability to the moral stance that no-one needs to eat meat or dairy: Billions do, across the world, because of the availability of foodstuffs limited by the lack of Tescos and Holland And Barretts. For me, I could not look down upon another human being's need to survive and criticise their choice of diet for doing so just because my affluent region affords me the luxury of choice. Our affluence comes at a cost of exploitation that encompasses more than just the welfare of cows. As a result, that question of 'unneccessary suffering' diminishes enough that I feel consciously happy to eat meat.

And why do I now really, really want to watch Alive?

[Stichman]

Furthermore Stichman, in relation to a cow being unable to comprehend moral issues, brought up when you said:

Why not apply the same logic to mentally-impaired people who have the same intellect and inability to understand philosophy as cows? Eat them too? The debate hangs on ability to suffer, and has nothing to do with intellect, because no-one would justify eating disabled people on the grounds that they haven't read understood Peter Singer's work on animal liberty and can't even explain how black holes work.

We've been through all this! I'm speciesist, remember? Clearly I wouldn't eat a mentally-impaired person, because they are a human. I have more interest in protecting human life than protecting animal life. If this is wrong, then so be it.

[KimyReizeger]

I think this is a pretty good post overall and I understand your position, and would probably equate as fairly similar to my own current stance on the issue.

I think it's clear from this thread that your decision to eat meat comes down to whether you think there is any unnecessary suffering, not whether or not you'd eat a disabled person.

The disabled person reference is used to demonstrate that intellect and comprehension of the issue at hand play no part a debate concerning the morality of meat-eating. I don't believe there is a doubt that suffering is involved. Rather, the real question is whether or not you feel economic conditions in our society make it 'necessary' or not. It all hangs on that word. I believe the Armageddon / societal breakdown scenario predicted by Le Stu and maybe also Neil earlier is ridiculous and one cannot say we are too poor to procure and live well off other foodstuffs.

It is about us exploiting (rightly or wrongly) another species for our benefit.

I think it valid to suggest that, because we wouldn't do so with humans, we shouldn't do so with animals, for their equal ability to feel pain.

The negative sides of eating meat and diary are overplayed, much as the negative effects of eating a vegan diet are overplayed, and we get the benefit of being morally superior to the majority of the world by having the affluence and availability to the products required to eat a healthy diet with meat and dairy included or not.

Agreed

I also think that, as a society, eating animals that we have domesticated and cultured for millenia has become an intrinsic part of our economy and welfare of many that it is more than just an issue of animal suffering.

This is besides the point regarding the morality of meat-eating. It's the 'my father did it so will I' argument all over again. Economics don't play a part in the fundamental ethics of meat-eating.

But where one person may see a poltical or societal ideal, I see the abolition of multiple species intrinsically linked to the livelihood of billions across the world

.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, or that it isn't interesting, but don't these economical issues dilute the basic moral debate?

And, to recap something I said a few pages ago, I see a lack of applicability to the moral stance that no-one needs to eat meat or dairy: Billions do, across the world, because of the availability of foodstuffs limited by the lack of Tescos and Holland And Barretts. For me, I could not look down upon another human being's need to survive and criticise their choice of diet for doing so just because my affluent region affords me the luxury of choice. Our affluence comes at a cost of exploitation that encompasses more than just the welfare of cows. As a result, that question of 'unneccessary suffering' diminishes enough that I feel consciously happy to eat meat.

I take the point but think you are talking pragmatically, and not philosophically, on the subject. I am not sufficiently moved by an animal suffering for the plate yet to quit meat, but am going to investigate further, because there seems to be a lot of delusion and spin on the subject. Definately there are good moral grounds to not eat meat and I don't see why, in a society such as ours, a vegetarian diet should be shunned as impractical.

[KimyReizeger]

We've been through all this! I'm speciesist, remember? Clearly I wouldn't eat a mentally-impaired person, because they are a human. I have more interest in protecting human life than protecting animal life. If this is wrong, then so be it.

Humans in Scotland have a large degree of freedom and have no immediate threat of death by slaughter. Therefore it makes little sense to invoke them as something you're protecting at the expense of animals. It is not the humans under threat on farms.

Furthermore, statements such as If this is wrong, then so be it, seriously undermine your contribution to moral debates.

[Alkaline]

Should mentally impaired people be allowed to eat meat?

[Rob_86]

So why are you so happy to take some ideas from religion without much argument, but totally reject others as ancient, irrelevant ramblings? If you accept 'morality' as a desireable trait, why do you so readily reject the idea that humans are inherently superior to animals? Surely morality is just as 'foundation-less' as any other idea originating from religion?

Presumably,this 'deeper' area you refer to is just your natural conviction that it's nice to be nice. It's natural to want to protect your own species. Just as it's our natural compulsion to eat meat, which probably originates from our desire for self-preservation.

Nobody is arguing against morality, so why are you arguing against our equally 'natural' consumption of meat? Oh, and I'm sure you'd agree that just because the majority of people think something is 'right', that doesn't make it so...

No, I just argue for consistency as I have said before. I draw the same assumption as the rest of society that morality is important - which is a reasonable enough thing to assume (and in all debates you have to draw assumptions somewhere). This is where I draw the assumptions in this particluar issue, we could go further back and doubt we even exist and how we could ever know we do, but I prefer to draw the line at the acceptance of morality as important (for various reasons, but mainly as I have no reason to doubt this factor).

My reason for arguing for the acceptance of animals as having rights, is that it is a reasonable extension given what rights are and how the world is by our best science. Hence there is good reason for changing this view (just like there was with countless other moral changes over the century).

The reason I reject Christianity on many grounds, is that it is paradoxical by it's own terms (paradox after paradox appears in the bible). However it did get some things right, it was written with values which were already in society after all - there is no reason to reject things like morality without good reason. Anyway, this is waaay of topic now.

[Rob_86]

This debate has taken some strange turns over the weekend! I can't really understand how the decent points supporting the ideas of animal rights have been disregarded without being answered.

The idea of speciesism, whilst it was deconstructed to show what it was, still poses a huge problem to meat eaters. It is very similar to ageism, in that it is isn't ageist to stop a young child having a right to vote, and neither is it speciesist to stop an animal having one - for obvious reasons on both counts. However due to the fact that we do not kill and eat young children or the mentally disabled, regardless of how much pain we could stop them suffering from doing so, there is a rather large discrepancy. I mean even if this kind of canibalism didn't pose health threats, we would still oppose it morally wouldn't we? So we should try to do the same with animals.

The reasons put forward for this discrepancy so far, as a defence of 'meat-eating' are as follows -

1) It's natural to eat meat, and not so to eat those mentally disabled individuals. However of course, naturality is not a reason to do something (shown by the fact that a lot of 'natural' human behaviours have been outlawed over the years.).

2) Animal use is okay if it is painless. However, as shown by the examples, we wouldn't kill and eat an orphaned, unattached mentally disabled child, exactly intellectually equal to a pig, which makes this point mute.

3) We are dictating ethics to other nations which would make them feel inferior (or some such!). This makes very, very little sense as an argument. If we can afford to live in more environmentally friendly ways, should we shun this in favour of replicating the behaviour of the worlds poorest people, those who are struggling to feed themselves?! Of course not! Morality, especially animal rights, is about granting individuals the rights which they should reasonably be granted - this shouldn't be halted just because others don't do it!

These points do not stand up, for the reasons given - so how on earth have we been able to disregard animal rights so easily! The point is that an animal, if it does live and experience it's own life, must have that life respected. After all, rights relate to characteristics, it isn't right to pick and choose which individuals have and do not have each right on factors other than these characteritics. It is perfectly 'natural' to want your own family, or your own friends to be happy and to care about them more than others - but this 'genetic' reasoning pattern of 'I'm human, so I am justified in protecting all my own over other species' doesn't make a lot of sense. The genetic reasoning gives us reason why we did develop doing things, but it doesn't give us reason to keep doing things (unless it is assumed there is some grand plans for humans written into our genetics, and that we stray from the path if we ignore them!).

And anyway, you can have all the personal preference for humans that you like, it doesn't give reason to ignore at least basic animal rights - it isn't helping out other humans to ignore animal rights, in fact in terms of environmental and efficiency factors, it is doing the complete opposite. The point in this discussion is that the strong argument for animal rights gives us reason to buy things other than meat or dairy when we are shopping. To this point, I haven't seen much argument against. Except for 'it's my choice', which with all due respect doesn't need to be posted on a discussion board

[Rob_86]

We've been through all this! I'm speciesist, remember? Clearly I wouldn't eat a mentally-impaired person, because they are a human. I have more interest in protecting human life than protecting animal life. If this is wrong, then so be it.

I have to agree with Kimy on this. If this was pre-racism era (and I know racism and speciesism aren't the same thing) then it would be pretty bad to look back on people's comments and see things written like 'I'm a racist remember, if that is wrong so be it'! The point of moral/ethical debate is to figure out what is wrong. If you think you have a reason that speciesism is okay in some instances, then the idea would be to say it. However if you resort to defending a personal preference against morality, then you're position becomes a little intenable.

I think what you really mean (correct me if I'm wrong.) is that you prefer humans, and do so unashamedly -and if THAT is wrong, then so be it. But of course that isn't wrong, at all (unless you take one of those odd Peter Singer utilitarian views!). However this isn't you acting speciesist, it's just having a preference. However, if you were to deny other animal their rights, purely on the basis of them being physically and mentally different to you, that is what is speciesist.

[nullmouse]

I'm not saying you don't have a point, or that it isn't interesting, but don't these economical issues dilute the basic moral debate?

I take the point but think you are talking pragmatically, and not philosophically, on the subject.

I've taken these two comments together just to put forward that I, personally, find that practicality often does weigh highly in my understanding of how decisions based on moral issues or philosophical arguments are resolved. I find nothing wrong with acting pragmatically, and imagine that many of us do so on a daily basis about many issues a lot of people would be up in arms about - I hopee my contribution over the last few pages of this thread have touched upon some of the moral and philosophical points too

[nullmouse]

The idea of speciesism, whilst it was deconstructed to show what it was, still poses a huge problem to meat eaters. It is very similar to ageism, in that it is isn't ageist to stop a young child having a right to vote, and neither is it speciesist to stop an animal having one - for obvious reasons on both counts. However due to the fact that we do not kill and eat young children or the mentally disabled, regardless of how much pain we could stop them suffering from doing so, there is a rather large discrepancy. I mean even if this kind of canibalism didn't pose health threats, we would still oppose it morally wouldn't we? So we should try to do the same with animals.

I think any variation of the disabled, child or elderly argument doesn't hold much water, for the reasons I put forward a few pages ago: Disabled, child or elderly we're all human and members of the same species, whereas the animals we chose to eat are not. I feel like I'm treading water pressing back to this point, and I'm sure I was much more eloquent a few pages ago ;D

Also, my off-the-cuff remark about Alive was exactly because I was thinking about circumstances when we would accept eating another human was morally acceptable. Maybe a discussion tangent too far?

1) It's natural to eat meat, and not so to eat those mentally disabled individuals. However of course, naturality is not a reason to do something (shown by the fact that a lot of 'natural' human behaviours have been outlawed over the years.).

This simplifies the 'natural' argument too far. We have canines, for a start, and there's no dispute that we (as a species) naturally evolved to be effective hunter-gatherers. Physiologically, we're adapted to catch other animals and cope with eating them much as we're also adapted to grow and eat vegetables: It's natural, but I think we're maybe confusing our definitions of "natural"?

Of course, whether or not it is "natural" we do have access to alternatives, which might not be applicable to the entire world but are to us in Affluent Aberdeen. I would agree that we have developed as a society since the days of hitting things with rocks for fun, but in order to maintain a healthy vegan diet there is a reliance upon supplementation and fortification: That's not 'natural' either, and if you want to, for example, live without Big Brother-esque interference with your diet via fortification or, like me, believe that the supplementation empire is as big-buck a business as pharmaceutical companies, then you'd have a hard time doing so without including meat and dairy.

2) Animal use is okay if it is painless. However, as shown by the examples, we wouldn't kill and eat an orphaned, unattached mentally disabled child, exactly intellectually equal to a pig, which makes this point mute.

I disagree, for reasons relating to our own selfish (and natural) desire to protect our own species: An orphaned, unattached mentally disabled person does not suddenly become a pig.

3) We are dictating ethics to other nations which would make them feel inferior (or some such!). This makes very, very little sense as an argument.

How about not even outside out own nation? What about people living below the poverty line in our very own city. Are they morally deficiant because a cheap source of protein for their family is a six-pack of eggs for substantially cheaper than a pack of tofu? I have no problem with an individual's decision to not eat meat because they think it's cruel, but the expectation that I should follow suggests my morals are under scrutiny. We keep slipping between big swipes at morality by suggesting eating meat is as bad as eating a disabled person to patronising those that can't afford or don't have that luxury to choose. Or maybe I am missing the point: Do you not have an objection to all meat-eating and dairy?

The point is that an animal, if it does live and experience it's own life, must have that life respected. After all, rights relate to characteristics, it isn't right to pick and choose which individuals have and do not have each right on factors other than these characteritics. It is perfectly 'natural' to want your own family, or your own friends to be happy and to care about them more than others - but this 'genetic' reasoning pattern of 'I'm human, so I am justified in protecting all my own over other species' doesn't make a lot of sense. The genetic reasoning gives us reason why we did develop doing things, but it doesn't give us reason to keep doing things (unless it is assumed there is some grand plans for humans written into our genetics, and that we stray from the path if we ignore them!).

Do you think all animals are equal? Or, for that matter, that all living things are equal? (Must also resist a side-thread about the selfish gene - Perhaps we can start a book-club!)

And anyway, you can have all the personal preference for humans that you like, it doesn't give reason to ignore at least basic animal rights - it isn't helping out other humans to ignore animal rights, in fact in terms of environmental and efficiency factors, it is doing the complete opposite. The point in this discussion is that the strong argument for animal rights gives us reason to buy things other than meat or dairy when we are shopping. To this point, I haven't seen much argument against. Except for 'it's my choice', which with all due respect doesn't need to be posted on a discussion board

I think it's probably worth stressing that I don't beat dogs with sticks for fun, just in case it comes across that I have no concept of affording rights to animals. However, I believe we all metaphorically beat ever other species on the head with a massive wooden club every day - Eating some that we have selectively bred to our advantage and can replenish seems to me a little drop in the proverbial ocean.

[nullmouse]

I think it's probably worth stressing that I don't beat dogs with sticks for fun, just in case it comes across that I have no concept of affording rights to animals. However, I believe we all metaphorically beat ever other species on the head with a massive wooden club every day - Eating some that we have selectively bred to our advantage and can replenish seems to me a little drop in the proverbial ocean.

Actually, having slept on it and had an epiphany last night, it's clear that it's animal welfare I agree with and not animal rights.

[Rob_86]

I think any variation of the disabled, child or elderly argument doesn't hold much water, for the reasons I put forward a few pages ago: Disabled, child or elderly we're all human and members of the same species, whereas the animals we chose to eat are not. I feel like I'm treading water pressing back to this point, and I'm sure I was much more eloquent a few pages ago ;D

Also, my off-the-cuff remark about Alive was exactly because I was thinking about circumstances when we would accept eating another human was morally acceptable. Maybe a discussion tangent too far?

This simplifies the 'natural' argument too far. We have canines, for a start, and there's no dispute that we (as a species) naturally evolved to be effective hunter-gatherers. Physiologically, we're adapted to catch other animals and cope with eating them much as we're also adapted to grow and eat vegetables: It's natural, but I think we're maybe confusing our definitions of "natural"?

Of course, whether or not it is "natural" we do have access to alternatives, which might not be applicable to the entire world but are to us in Affluent Aberdeen. I would agree that we have developed as a society since the days of hitting things with rocks for fun, but in order to maintain a healthy vegan diet there is a reliance upon supplementation and fortification: That's not 'natural' either, and if you want to, for example, live without Big Brother-esque interference with your diet via fortification or, like me, believe that the supplementation empire is as big-buck a business as pharmaceutical companies, then you'd have a hard time doing so without including meat and dairy.

I disagree, for reasons relating to our own selfish (and natural) desire to protect our own species: An orphaned, unattached mentally disabled person does not suddenly become a pig.

How about not even outside out own nation? What about people living below the poverty line in our very own city. Are they morally deficiant because a cheap source of protein for their family is a six-pack of eggs for substantially cheaper than a pack of tofu? I have no problem with an individual's decision to not eat meat because they think it's cruel, but the expectation that I should follow suggests my morals are under scrutiny. We keep slipping between big swipes at morality by suggesting eating meat is as bad as eating a disabled person to patronising those that can't afford or don't have that luxury to choose. Or maybe I am missing the point: Do you not have an objection to all meat-eating and dairy?

Do you think all animals are equal? Or, for that matter, that all living things are equal? (Must also resist a side-thread about the selfish gene - Perhaps we can start a book-club!)

I think it's probably worth stressing that I don't beat dogs with sticks for fun, just in case it comes across that I have no concept of affording rights to animals. However, I believe we all metaphorically beat ever other species on the head with a massive wooden club every day - Eating some that we have selectively bred to our advantage and can replenish seems to me a little drop in the proverbial ocean.

We did go over the speciesism being different thing, but there was never any reason for such a difference justifying the non-attribution of basic rights. If basic rights apply onto one species only, on basis of characteristics irrelevant to the actual rights, then we are preaching a right which has no reasonable basis - and hence no moral justification.

As for the natural point, yes there are natural behaviours of all sorts, just as natural as meat eating, that we disregard as immoral. Hence why natural isn't an argument to do something. (On a side note, we have canines in name only, not in nature)

As for the supplementation thing, this is a huge myth. I know a fair few vegans (some have been so their whole lives), and none that take any supplements. You are 'advised' to take supplements of everything you do not get - were it the other way around those deviating from a vegan diet would be advised to take supplements too I'm sure (probably because, as you point out, the supplement industry has big clout). There is nothing reasonably speaking found in dairy or meat that provides nutrients not found in many plant based sources. The Vitamin B12 thing was the only thing, and people are sharply starting to release that meat eaters are suffering from this just as much - if you're worried about the intake of this particular vitamin, supplements/fortified products are the only guaranteed option.

As for the morality points, it seems most of that you put across it practical based, ie, can people afford to stop eating meat etc/should we do it when others can't. Obviously these are points that sit on the side of veganism too, as it is a much more efficient method of farming for sure, so in the long run prices would drop dramatically - as well as the fact that more people can be fed on such a plant based diet. But no of course you shouldn't force families in the short term to do what will make their members suffer. If it was the other way around too, and in some bizarre twist of events it was humans who were being milked/slaughtered/used like this, the notion of rights would demand we stop using the humans. However it wouldn't mean that people should suffer in the long run. After all rights are about need, it isn't wrong to kill another human if you need to in order to survive - similarly it is the case with animals. But it wouldn't mean that in either situation that short term logistical issues should outweigh the great moral arguments either. You do put across decent practical issues to be considered, but these don't show any argument against any theory of rights - simply something to be considered should we get to a stage when we can dictate morality to people (which when you and I are running the government will be relevant, but we can probably leave for now )

The real point I think, is that we might well prefer one individual from an intellectually exactly similar other one, on the basis of physical differences (from which previous examples show species could be). This isn't wrong per se, but in terms of racist behaviour we can see that this 'preference' can be used to immoral ends in order to justify mistreatment to the detriment of others. With species it is no different. You can't use the same boundaries (it's not speciesist to give a human the job over a dog...), so you have to use science to figure out where the boundaries are. Animals other than humans don't require a right to vote, or to education or the such, but they do deserve a right to live - as after all no-one has shown they can not live and experience their lives. This is the point that has always been the central one in the philosophical debate for years, and the reason why no great argument against animal rights has ever been put forward. At the end of the day, without the prejudice of physical boundaries, there is no justification for using another who you don't need to use.

[nullmouse]

There is nothing reasonably speaking found in dairy or meat that provides nutrients not found in many plant based sources. The Vitamin B12 thing was the only thing, and people are sharply starting to release that meat eaters are suffering from this just as much - if you're worried about the intake of this particular vitamin, supplements/fortified products are the only guaranteed option.

Vitamin B12 is an essential vitamin, and I can't find any evidence to suggest normal meat eaters are suffering from this deficiency - I'd welcome references, though.

As for the morality points, it seems most of that you put across it practical based, ie, can people afford to stop eating meat etc/should we do it when others can't. Obviously these are points that sit on the side of veganism too, as it is a much more efficient method of farming for sure, so in the long run prices would drop dramatically - as well as the fact that more people can be fed on such a plant based diet.

I am aware that I raise very practical issues, but the decisions we make are seldom every done so on the basis of morals alone: There's a fertile milieu of pressures that add to our ultimate decisions, so I think it's only fair to acknowledge them.

First of all, I will admit that current farming methods create an ecological problem - Again, the pressures for this are wide and often economic - But we would still be reliant on animals for growing vegetables in sufficient quantities to feed everyone sufficiently. Livestock, according to the UN, are used to cultivate at least 320 million hectares of land. In addition, livestock provide the nutrition for large areas of cropland through their magnificant ability to crap. Farming is intrinsically linked to animal use, but is that not an exploitation of their rights under your logic? Surely that would be akin to slavery if I follow your reasoning?

After all rights are about need, it isn't wrong to kill another human if you need to in order to survive - similarly it is the case with animals. But it wouldn't mean that in either situation that short term logistical issues should outweigh the great moral arguments either. You do put across decent practical issues to be considered, but these don't show any argument against any theory of rights - simply something to be considered should we get to a stage when we can dictate morality to people (which when you and I are running the government will be relevant, but we can probably leave for now )

You're quite right, but I'm not really attempting to argue against rights at present. What I am trying to do is point out that whether humans (as a whole) eat meat or dairy isn't based on morality alone. For an individual, it can be, because we're all blessed with ability to make up our own minds on such matters (and be judged for them too - The wonders of autonomy).

Animals other than humans don't require a right to vote, or to education or the such, but they do deserve a right to live - as after all no-one has shown they can not live and experience their lives. This is the point that has always been the central one in the philosophical debate for years, and the reason why no great argument against animal rights has ever been put forward. At the end of the day, without the prejudice of physical boundaries, there is no justification for using another who you don't need to use.

Please forgive me, for I am about to do a sinful thing: I'm going to reference Wikipedia. But please, bear with me - I do this merely to illustrate that there are criticisms that have been raised to animal rights:

Animal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethics of eating meat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yup, I'm taking a lazy way out for now because that's my lunch-break over!

[Rob_86]

Vitamin B12 is an essential vitamin, and I can't find any evidence to suggest normal meat eaters are suffering from this deficiency - I'd welcome references, though.

I am aware that I raise very practical issues, but the decisions we make are seldom every done so on the basis of morals alone: There's a fertile milieu of pressures that add to our ultimate decisions, so I think it's only fair to acknowledge them.

First of all, I will admit that current farming methods create an ecological problem - Again, the pressures for this are wide and often economic - But we would still be reliant on animals for growing vegetables in sufficient quantities to feed everyone sufficiently. Livestock, according to the UN, are used to cultivate at least 320 million hectares of land. In addition, livestock provide the nutrition for large areas of cropland through their magnificant ability to crap. Farming is intrinsically linked to animal use, but is that not an exploitation of their rights under your logic? Surely that would be akin to slavery if I follow your reasoning?

You're quite right, but I'm not really attempting to argue against rights at present. What I am trying to do is point out that whether humans (as a whole) eat meat or dairy isn't based on morality alone. For an individual, it can be, because we're all blessed with ability to make up our own minds on such matters (and be judged for them too - The wonders of autonomy).

Please forgive me, for I am about to do a sinful thing: I'm going to reference Wikipedia. But please, bear with me - I do this merely to illustrate that there are criticisms that have been raised to animal rights:

Animal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethics of eating meat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yup, I'm taking a lazy way out for now because that's my lunch-break over!

Vitamin B12 is present in animals that create it, or have eaten the correct things to allow their bodies to create it. I have no references for studies that have been done either way (if there have been any?). However if you want to guarantee you get it, the only way is supplements (as I say the only two people I know who suffered it are avid meat eaters - not that this is scientific proof!). Anyways, whether your a meat eater or vegan worried about it, I would guess it makes more ethical sense to buy a man-made supplement than taking it from an animal.

Well yes practical problems are relevant, however the one's relating to others are not at this moment, and first the ethics have to be sorted out - if it is moral to eat meat then there is no point considering the practical implications of not doing so! And then the whole discussion stays much simpler too lol

As for the farming point, yes there are plenty of ways to fertilise crops without using animal dung. If the choice was between encaging you and using your faeces, or using alternate sources/chemicals etc, it would have to be chemicals as I would never do that to you! Same for the animals, unless you could find a way to collect their dung in the wild...I don't know, practical issues again!

And yes, I agree humans do not begin/continue eating meat based on the moral arguments alone. However the same could be said for any immoral acts of the past (like slavery for instance), but if no-one was to step out and follow morality over tradition, these things would never have stopped. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that people aren't evil, they don't do things they know to be wrong (regularly, anyway!), there are many other factors. But this is simply all the more reason for those who can step out of this circle to do so - like with every social change of the past and (hopefully!) every one of the future to get started it depends on people starting it.

Finally, yes thanks for the wikipeda reference I didn't say there weren't any criticisms against animal rights, just that there are none that hold up (or at least that's what I meant to say if I didn't lol). I haven't checked the wikipedia link, but from memory I would imagine Roger Scruton, Carl Cohen etc are on there. They are the most famous names against animal rights, mainly as there have to be famous names against animal rights in philosophy else there would be nothing to teach. If you actually look into the argument for them (which I admit isn't easy at work ), they are mainly based around contractualist arguments, which is essentially the same as those arguments on here which said 'animals can't be nice to me, so I won't be to them' - which obviously excludes many humans from the realms of ethics too. And their defences to this are about as strong as those which came on here too, sort of wishy washy points like, 'humans aren't animals' which fail to penetrate the actual reason on the matter or be able to defend/back up the proposition they are making or the proposition they originally made. (sorry if this bit sounds harsh, spent a couple of years at uni studying ideas like those of Roger 'Scrotum' trying to find a way to justify my meat eating beliefs and found nothing at all- hence the veganism!). Basically they all fall down on similar points to what I made in the last paragraph of my last post - in trying to justify a prejudice with the reason the prejudice exists, rather than showing why it should continue to exist.

Anyways this discussion has been conducted at a very decent level so far, long may it continue!

[Rob_86]

I just found and had a read through this environmental page (they advocate vegan diets as an environmental step that's why it's there in case any one wondered!)

Top Ten Food Choice Myths - Busted | Zerocarbonista

It goes through a lot of the non-philosophical points/discussions that have been had on here, if anyone can't be arsed reading through the whole thread!

[nullmouse]

I just found and had a read through this environmental page (they advocate vegan diets as an environmental step that's why it's there in case any one wondered!)

Top Ten Food Choice Myths - Busted | Zerocarbonista

It goes through a lot of the non-philosophical points/discussions that have been had on here, if anyone can't be arsed reading through the whole thread!

I actually find that to be an incredibly poorly written article, and there's some glaring factual inaccuracies (for example - that chicken has more calories and fat than a Big Mac {1}) alongside some weirdly confused arguments and misleading titles: The 'oily fish boosts brain power' makes a couple of valid points, then digresses on to heart disease and claims that omega-3 is well-known to be bad for people with heart disease before making some argument that you can get omega-3 from plants anyway: Surely you'd want to avoid it if there's no evidence it's any good and may possibly be harmful? In fairness, I did find one paper that suggests that people with angina may have an increased risk of sudden cardiac death - But it was a mild effect. The same meta-analysis also showed that omega-3 can decrease the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with MI {2}, whilst multiple meta-analysis (summarised in {3}) have shown that omega-3 may improve arterial hypertension.

Myth number 8 made me laugh the most, because I remember the furore over the original PETA campaign. The implication from this argument is that eating meat makes you impotent because meat contains fat, fat thickens arteries. Net result, Mr. Floppy. Aside from the fact that they're deliberately focussing on the most extreme ends of unhealthy diet (one of which you could acheive an equivalent of on a vegan diet by deep-frying everything in sunflower oil), the bit that really riles me is the suggestion that changing your diet is sufficient to prevent erectile dysfunction: Impotence is also caused by psychological factors, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, kidney disease, hormone and thyroid disorders - The number of cases of impotence caused by diet alone accounts for but a fraction of that 1 in 10 they talk of.

As their argument relies on taking the extreme ends of a meat-eaters diet, I'd counter that veganism can lead to erectile dysfunction. The authors of the link admit that B12 deficiency is a problem in the vegan diet, which is why supplementation is used. As they don't afford meat-eaters the grace of basing their assertion that meat causes erectile dysfunction on a healthy omnivore diet, I'm going to assume they won't mind me doing the same for the vegan contingent: Deficiency of vitamin B12 causes a condition called hyperhomocysteinemia, which is when homocysteine accumulates within the body and causes a heap of health problems. One of these health problems is a reduced production of nitric oxide, a soluble gas used in cell signaling and an important messenger in getting wood {4,5}. Ergo, vitamin B12 deficiency may cause erectile dysfunction and eating a source of vitamin B12 (e.g. meat) would decrease this risk.

In short, that article doesn't really convince me that it's an unbiased appraisal of the evidence and I find it's a little all-over-the-place. I've been doing some reading on calcium and vitamin B12 in more detail, so I'll probably post again on those soon

{1} A Big Mac contains 229 calories and 10.7g of fat per 100g. Skinless breast fillets contain 116 calories and 3.2g of fat per 100g, or a roast breast with skin contains 171 calories and 6.5g of fat per 100g. Even this is a poor comparison - A Big Mac contains bread and salad that contributes to that weight, whereas the data for the chicken is just the meat alone. Source: Weight Loss Resources

{2} Zhao et al, Ann Med. 2009;41(4):301-10.

{3} Cicero et al, Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2009 Jul;7(3):330-7.

{4} Demir et al, Metabolism. 2006 Dec;55(12):1564-8.

{5} Lombardo et al, J Endocrinol Invest. 2004 Oct;27(9):883-5.

[nullmouse]

I feel I should post something on the ethical discussion rather than taking my preferred option of disappearing down the scientific route

I think I find the attributing of rights to animals to be a confusing issue, one of which that probably requires some clarification of some definitions or concepts before I feel I could really structure a reasoned reply.

First, what are we defining as an animal? Sounds trivial, but if we're discussing if every animal should have rights, then I'd need to know if that includes, for example, insects. I assume that we'd be talking about invertebrates only? If so, why do we draw that distinction?

Secondly, I'd need to know what rights we're giving to the animals. Are they exactly the same as the basic rights to which humans afford each other?

[Rob_86]

I actually find that to be an incredibly poorly written article, and there's some glaring factual inaccuracies (for example - that chicken has more calories and fat than a Big Mac {1}) alongside some weirdly confused arguments and misleading titles: The 'oily fish boosts brain power' makes a couple of valid points, then digresses on to heart disease and claims that omega-3 is well-known to be bad for people with heart disease before making some argument that you can get omega-3 from plants anyway: Surely you'd want to avoid it if there's no evidence it's any good and may possibly be harmful? In fairness, I did find one paper that suggests that people with angina may have an increased risk of sudden cardiac death - But it was a mild effect. The same meta-analysis also showed that omega-3 can decrease the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with MI {2}, whilst multiple meta-analysis (summarised in {3}) have shown that omega-3 may improve arterial hypertension.

Myth number 8 made me laugh the most, because I remember the furore over the original PETA campaign. The implication from this argument is that eating meat makes you impotent because meat contains fat, fat thickens arteries. Net result, Mr. Floppy. Aside from the fact that they're deliberately focussing on the most extreme ends of unhealthy diet (one of which you could acheive an equivalent of on a vegan diet by deep-frying everything in sunflower oil), the bit that really riles me is the suggestion that changing your diet is sufficient to prevent erectile dysfunction: Impotence is also caused by psychological factors, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, kidney disease, hormone and thyroid disorders - The number of cases of impotence caused by diet alone accounts for but a fraction of that 1 in 10 they talk of.

As their argument relies on taking the extreme ends of a meat-eaters diet, I'd counter that veganism can lead to erectile dysfunction. The authors of the link admit that B12 deficiency is a problem in the vegan diet, which is why supplementation is used. As they don't afford meat-eaters the grace of basing their assertion that meat causes erectile dysfunction on a healthy omnivore diet, I'm going to assume they won't mind me doing the same for the vegan contingent: Deficiency of vitamin B12 causes a condition called hyperhomocysteinemia, which is when homocysteine accumulates within the body and causes a heap of health problems. One of these health problems is a reduced production of nitric oxide, a soluble gas used in cell signaling and an important messenger in getting wood {4,5}. Ergo, vitamin B12 deficiency may cause erectile dysfunction and eating a source of vitamin B12 (e.g. meat) would decrease this risk.

In short, that article doesn't really convince me that it's an unbiased appraisal of the evidence and I find it's a little all-over-the-place. I've been doing some reading on calcium and vitamin B12 in more detail, so I'll probably post again on those soon

{1} A Big Mac contains 229 calories and 10.7g of fat per 100g. Skinless breast fillets contain 116 calories and 3.2g of fat per 100g, or a roast breast with skin contains 171 calories and 6.5g of fat per 100g. Even this is a poor comparison - A Big Mac contains bread and salad that contributes to that weight, whereas the data for the chicken is just the meat alone. Source: Weight Loss Resources

{2} Zhao et al, Ann Med. 2009;41(4):301-10.

{3} Cicero et al, Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2009 Jul;7(3):330-7.

{4} Demir et al, Metabolism. 2006 Dec;55(12):1564-8.

{5} Lombardo et al, J Endocrinol Invest. 2004 Oct;27(9):883-5.

Didn't mean it as an article, just as an informal challenge to the myths (which have been done on here in much more detail, but didn't think people would be arsed reading as it's a million pages long!).

Don't really get your points on the issues of clogged arteries and stuff, as this is far more harmful from foods with cholesterol (animal products) than non. There are tons of people who don't 'go over the top' on meat eating and still have serious heart/circulation issues due to the fact that the human body doesn't digest cholesterol in the way that other meat eating animals do. It isn't that similar to vitamin B12, as that is a deficiency which veganism doesn't solve, but one that is very much a problem on a non-vegan diet too. But I would seriously doubt that vegans suffer more with it than non-vegans (though I wait for the balanced studies on that one too).

And as for the big mac and chicken fillets comparison, who would know where he's getting his figures from (presumably you can trace that blog back to his last blog which it refers to, and then that one back to the studies which that one refers to!). Anywho, it still goes over a lot of conversations that have been had on here without having to read it all!

[nullmouse]

Didn't mean it as an article, just as an informal challenge to the myths (which have been done on here in much more detail, but didn't think people would be arsed reading as it's a million pages long!).

Personally, I think it's a very misleading and scientifically vapid article so I have to express my concerns over it being a fair and valid summary.

As for fat and cholesterol, aside from the fact that we *need* fat, the argument that an animal diet is saturated with fat and a vegan diet doesn't need to worry about them is rubbish. Trans-fats are the fats we should worry about, which are present at very low levels in meat and dairy, but are more commonly present in hydrogenated fat, like butter or margarine. Given hydrogenated fat can come from animal or vegetable sources it is a component of everyone's diet that we should all be concerned about, vegan or meat-eater alike. As for cholesterol, our body creates the majority of our cholesterol from saturated fats in the diet, which can be present again in an unhealthy meat or vegan diet due to the prevalance of saturated of fats in *all* oils: Coconut oil is 92% saturated fat whilst butter is66%! What's more, our body needs cholesterol - It's an essential component of our cell walls and is the building-block for hormones. What we don't need is too much cholesterol caused by too much saturated fats - Which is perfecetly possible to acheive on an unhealthy vegan or an unhealthy meat-eating diet.

On the issue of fat, it makes no odds to me if you have a vegan or meat-eating diet - You can eat healthy on either, but it is not an argument for why we shouldn't eat meat or dairy any more than an argument for why we shouldn't eat coconuts. I may come back to omega-3...

[Le Stu]

Concerning vitamin B12, from what I've read, it seems that a deficiency in the body is more likely to be due to problems with absorption than diet (although obviously it must be present in your diet.) typically due to a lack of Intrinsic Factor in your stomach lining. If you're not suffering obvious symptoms of deficiency, such as anaemia, then it's probably not a problem. While everyday carnivorous diets may seem to be slightly below the RDA, you must remember that occasional consumption of shellfish or foods containing liver, such as pate, will balance this out nicely as they contain MASSIVE amounts and, unlike certain other vitamins, we can store the surplus in our bodies for years.

I also read a piece that mentioned the case of naturalistic vegans in Iran who managed to do without supplementation by accidently eating their own faeces (they were fertilising their vegetables with it). Apparently, bacteria in the colon produce the stuff but it happens too low down in your digestive tract for absorption to occur. So, Holland & Barret or poo, it's your choice

[Rob_86]

I feel I should post something on the ethical discussion rather than taking my preferred option of disappearing down the scientific route

I think I find the attributing of rights to animals to be a confusing issue, one of which that probably requires some clarification of some definitions or concepts before I feel I could really structure a reasoned reply.

First, what are we defining as an animal? Sounds trivial, but if we're discussing if every animal should have rights, then I'd need to know if that includes, for example, insects. I assume that we'd be talking about invertebrates only? If so, why do we draw that distinction?

Secondly, I'd need to know what rights we're giving to the animals. Are they exactly the same as the basic rights to which humans afford each other?

Thank god, back on the ethical issue

The animals that animal rights refer to would differ depending on the right. Not all humans are party to 'human' rights (children can not reasonably vote for example - whereas of course there interests should still be considered), so obviously not all animal rights should refer to all animals. The characteristics relevant to the right would determine who does or doesn't have the right. That is the rule of thumb, or at least should be, in all rights-based discussion. You can't attriute rights to creatures (be they human or non-human) that don't have the characteristics to properly utilise it etc.

So for a right to life (and a majority of the basic rights like this), the trait required would be the ability to 'consciously experience life' (anything else wouldn't 'consciously experience' any suffering/loss if their life was taken). So obviously most/all plants are ruled out (at least I'm not aware of any scientific suggestions that any plant consciously experiences life as an individual psychological entity), and then many sea dwelling organisms like sponges etc on the same grounds. I guess when it comes to certain insects there will be lines which we don't know where to draw as our science isn't good enough to tell us just yet - perhaps there may be some we can never know about (ie lack of understanding about the creatures nervous system or brain mechanisms or something - are they just automated, or are they experiencing life?). Either way, this doesn't tend to pose a big problem, as the moral answer if you don't know is to be careful. It isn't like we need to go around farming these insects, so let's just not bother doing it. As with every animal (that rights relate to) and human, you don't use them/kill them/cause them suffering if you don't have to - well the same might as well apply if science can't give us a conclusive answer.

What science do we use? Well whatever we have. It will never be fully conclusive. I can't for sure tell that you experience life unless I am you (and even then, philosophically the issue is still open!). But we have a good idea that given certain characteristics (things like mammals nervous systems), along with a sign of life, a creature is experiencing life. We know this is true, scientifically speaking, of non-dead humans, dogs, cats, cows, pigs, snakes...you get the idea. And we know this isn't true of oak trees, grass, bacteria, mushrooms..again, you probably get the idea.

Which rights - whichever the creature is reasonably in possesion of the traits to demand. The right to live is about protecting a living, experiencing being. We now know this stretches a lot further than just humans, and should extended as such. And all the way down to those organisms that we know don't experience life (the vast majority of the earth is systems like this). If a creature doesn't have the ability to make informed voting decisions, they shouldn't be allowed to vote (hence why children can't and why all animals other than humans shouldn't). In fact there are a lot of rights we should never have to even really think about - most of us don't interact with other creatures very often, so it shouldn't worry us.

Of course the problem people normally have with this whole thing is 'what if a bear attackes me, I can't kill it if it has rights' - of course you can! If you kill in self defence, there is nothing wrong with that whatever the individual attacking you. Similarly if you have to eat in desolate conditions to survive, and the only options are other humans or animals, then go for it! Rights are about need. If you don't need to do something which harms someone, the recipient has the right that you don't do it.

The other problem is that people will say animals can't respect each others rights, so how can they have rights (ie, a lion will naturally kill a gazelle without it being immoral, so a gazelle can't have a right). But of course rights only relate to moral agents. Attributing a right isn't a way of policing nature (if it was I certainly wouldn't advocate them), it's a way of extending human morality to individuals you may have interactions with (be these interactions direct or indirect). An individual cow has no less claim for you to respect it's right to live than an individual human. We may prefer to 'save' a human first if the opportunity arises (there's nothing wrong with that at all), but it doesn't mean the cow is therefore lesser. She is obviously 'lesser' in ways of human inteligence, and a lot of physical abilities, but this doesn't make her lesser in her ability to experience her own life.

You are right this is a confusing issue if it is something you have never breached before. But if you look at it from a different perspective (ie as what rights reasonably speaking should be/are, rather than what amnesty would have you think they are*) then it becomes very simple. It's all rather common sense - that which should have rights does, and that which shouldn't doesn't.

*This is not a pop at amnesty by the way, I fully advocate their work and think they do an amazing job - just they don't have a logically sound view of what a right is that's all (we should protect a human not because they are human, but because they will suffer if we don't)

[Rob_86]

Personally, I think it's a very misleading and scientifically vapid article so I have to express my concerns over it being a fair and valid summary.

As for fat and cholesterol, aside from the fact that we *need* fat, the argument that an animal diet is saturated with fat and a vegan diet doesn't need to worry about them is rubbish. Trans-fats are the fats we should worry about, which are present at very low levels in meat and dairy, but are more commonly present in hydrogenated fat, like butter or margarine. Given hydrogenated fat can come from animal or vegetable sources it is a component of everyone's diet that we should all be concerned about, vegan or meat-eater alike. As for cholesterol, our body creates the majority of our cholesterol from saturated fats in the diet, which can be present again in an unhealthy meat or vegan diet due to the prevalance of saturated of fats in *all* oils: Coconut oil is 92% saturated fat whilst butter is66%! What's more, our body needs cholesterol - It's an essential component of our cell walls and is the building-block for hormones. What we don't need is too much cholesterol caused by too much saturated fats - Which is perfecetly possible to acheive on an unhealthy vegan or an unhealthy meat-eating diet.

On the issue of fat, it makes no odds to me if you have a vegan or meat-eating diet - You can eat healthy on either, but it is not an argument for why we shouldn't eat meat or dairy any more than an argument for why we shouldn't eat coconuts. I may come back to omega-3...

Fair do's. We can eat healthily on either. It's just we don't need cholesterol in our diet, and the point I would make is that it is dangerous to do so. Much more dangerous to take on cholesterol in our diet than to take on the fats which cause our body to create excess cholesterol (though I would have thought either could cause problems, the first would strike me as more striking). And yeah, don't drink coconut milk all the time

[Rob_86]

Concerning vitamin B12, from what I've read, it seems that a deficiency in the body is more likely to be due to problems with absorption than diet (although obviously it must be present in your diet.) typically due to a lack of Intrinsic Factor in your stomach lining. If you're not suffering obvious symptoms of deficiency, such as anaemia, then it's probably not a problem. While everyday carnivorous diets may seem to be slightly below the RDA, you must remember that occasional consumption of shellfish or foods containing liver, such as pate, will balance this out nicely as they contain MASSIVE amounts and, unlike certain other vitamins, we can store the surplus in our bodies for years.

I also read a piece that mentioned the case of naturalistic vegans in Iran who managed to do without supplementation by accidently eating their own faeces (they were fertilising their vegetables with it). Apparently, bacteria in the colon produce the stuff but it happens too low down in your digestive tract for absorption to occur. So, Holland & Barret or poo, it's your choice

Lol, I was under the impression that even in America with the FDA (which is essentially ruled by the meat industry) they advocate everyone take Vit B12 supplements if they are deficient. If the chance came up tp plug a type of meat they would jump on it, so it strikes me as strange they wouldn't suggest more of a certain type of meat if they were guaranteed to give you it.

And also, I was under the impression that we evolved to need vit B12 because we ate a lot of unwashed vegetables hundreds of years ago that had it (or whatever makes us create it) in. Obviously you can't tell people to do this nowadays as they're are worse health risks to doing this than the benefit of B12. Anyways, from the two people I know that suffered this disease, I would suggest supplements or fortified foods if you have problems, as they both are avid meat eaters so it seems you can never be sure.

[Le Stu]

Lol, I was under the impression that even in America with the FDA (which is essentially ruled by the meat industry) they advocate everyone take Vit B12 supplements if they are deficient. If the chance came up tp plug a type of meat they would jump on it, so it strikes me as strange they wouldn't suggest more of a certain type of meat if they were guaranteed to give you it.

And also, I was under the impression that we evolved to need vit B12 because we ate a lot of unwashed vegetables hundreds of years ago that had it (or whatever makes us create it) in. Obviously you can't tell people to do this nowadays as they're are worse health risks to doing this than the benefit of B12. Anyways, from the two people I know that suffered this disease, I would suggest supplements or fortified foods if you have problems, as they both are avid meat eaters so it seems you can never be sure.

It's possible that a move away from consumption of red meat, especially beef, due to health concerns has something to do with that. Also, we don't typically go for the internal organs these days when it comes to cuts of meat, which is unfortunate as the liver contains 80% of the vitamin B12 in the animal.

I'm currently enjoying Ardennes pate on crackers which contains around 47% liver, along with delicious pork connective tissue but I don't wish to put you off your thread...