Tell Us Why It’s Ethical to Eat Meat

[bluethunder1962]

I love all types of guns and love to shoot but I don't eat meat. I have always loved all animals and have been around all types all my life. I started animal rescue after katrina in new orleans. The more you see how the animals that are to be eaten are treated and they life they live just to be eaten sucks. A lot of vegies would be Ok with it if they had a great life before they are killed. I KNOW all animals hurt just like us. Not putting anybody down for eating meat(althought I am made fun of all the time for not eating meat) I just think the animals could be treated better before they are killed. I find plenty to eat with out eating meat.

 

[.45Guy]

It's with a great deal of trepidation that I post this link... He does make some rather valid points though. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Well the question from the beginning is based on a faulty premise, coupled with complete balderdash that the "murderer's row" of judges are qualified to be "judges", when they are all raving anti-meat people. Actually it's a kangaroo court. It's akin to saying "Let's debate the validity of Christianity and the debate will be judged by The Reverend Billy Graham, Pastor Joel Osteen, and Pope Benedict the 16th".

Ethics: that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

So the premise is: It is already established that meat eating is immoral, and folks joining the debate must reverse this conclusion.

The question posed by the NYT concerns the "eating" of meat, and the simple act of ingesting meat has never been shown to be immoral and so is not unethical.

The debate will be based on the past writings and observations of the "judges" which deal with the treatment of the animals when held in captivity, and the methods for dispatching the animals before they are processed into meat..., which is not part of the question posed for the debate..., but is in reality the foundation of the vegan argument.

Medically it has been demonstrated that lack of protein in quantities found in animal sources requires artificial (man made) supplements for optimal physical developement and for maintaining optimal health, not simply warding off Beri Beri or anemia. So the arguments that humans harvest meat by artificial means [hunting with guns, butchering with knives] to supplement their diet with meat are trumped by the need for humans to ingest artificial supplements to provide proper dietary needs of the non-meat-eater.

So again it will devolve into arguments about the treatment of the animals (they don't call themselves People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for nothing). They will anthropomorphize the animals, claiming they "love" their young, "mourn" for the dead, when there is no way to understand what "emotions" are experienced in the lower animals. None.

Then when hunting is mentioned, for hunted animals in most cases are free, free range, and dispatched quickly, the debate will devolve around "Hunting causes the animal to suffer, even for a short time, and that's wrong" which will be followed by "Guns are artificial while lions use natural teeth and claws" implying that if we killed wild animals with our bare hands this would pass the ethical test (while ignoring the relatively slow death caused by a big cat kill on an animal where the animal suffers a high degree of agony). This will be followed by "Lions only know of one food source, so they have to hunt, while we have other food sources." This last point blatantly implies that the prey animal can distinguish between being the prey of a lion versus being the prey of a human, - although the foundation of the argument is: What does the prey animal experience? The fact that hunting in the vast majority of cases greatly reduces the suffering of the prey animal when compared to disease or natural predators will be ignored. :banghead:

So CALLING BS! on the whole idea. We don't have to engage in the debate in the first place, and not engaging in such a debate is not prima facie proof of the validity of the opposing argument.

LD

 

[Slamfire]

Ethics debates usually revolve around (a) suffering and (b) effect upon the environment.

I agree, that is what the debate will revolve around in the Times.
Ethics is a man made creation.

For me, “(a) suffering”. As long as the animal is dispatched in a way that minimizes suffering, I think that is ethical. There is no reason to maximize or prolong suffering in an animal.

Cats would disagree. Cats will torture baby birds and mice just to have something to play with. We are lucky Cats are not the dominate life on this planet!

I think it is unethical to kill something and waste the meat. Or maybe it has nothing to do with ethics and just my feeling about waste in general. Still, if you kill something, take its one and only life, you should not waste it.

 

[Zoogster]

bluethunder1962 said:

The more you see how the animals that are to be eaten are treated and they life they live just to be eaten sucks. A lot of vegies would be Ok with it if they had a great life before they are killed. I KNOW all animals hurt just like us.

That is a good point. I knew I made a mistake when I said a 'little less death can be a good thing' earlier because it is not so much the death, but rather the lack of a life that is the problem.

We have a society that has practically turned dogs into human beings, considering them members of families, ascribing to them human qualities and legal protections that can even seem quite excessive sometimes.
It shows people consider them thinking feeling creatures.
People feel bad about the millions of former pets in shelters that sit in a cage and then eventually get euthanized.
Yet ironically while people can be moved by those mere millions of animals, a drop in the bucket, many cannot even be bothered to consider the 10 billion animals eaten for food in the US every year.
Which includes some fairly smart animals with feelings.
A large percentage of these animals spend their entire lives in conditions worse than those in pet animal shelters.
You can even be convicted of neglect and cruelty for housing pets in ways that are better than those used in factory farming.


As I mentioned earlier the wild ecosystem cannot even support less than 1 % of human meat demand. It is a recreational resource only that must be carefully managed to allow sustainable harvest. Some hunters just get disillusioned by perceived abundance because a really small percent of the population does most of the hunting, giving the impression of great abundance.
So clearly the population has to raise their own meat in order to eat meat.

However that said, I can hunt a wild animal, acknowledge the sacrifice made for my benefit, and enjoy the activity.
The animal lived a life, with ups and downs, various experiences, some pleasant and some traumatic. It experienced freedom, and had free will to make decisions that impacted it or its offspring, the world it knew.
It saw seasons, breathed fresh air, and was involved in activities.
It experienced good and bad. It lived a life.
Contrast that with the meat bought in the store.
A large percentage of the animals raised for human consumption never even had a life before they are killed. They know nothing except a meaningless existence before their death. Sometimes knowing little more than a cage or pen, and then dying.
Having never existed would have often been better than that pointless existence.


So the real question is if people impose certain standards on production, what is a reasonable balance of cost and efficiency.
How much per pound of meat is more humane treatment worth?
That is the real debate.




I think people were more balanced when most of the United States lived on small farms. When they raised their own animals, and killed them. Treated them with dignity, while also realizing there was a time for killing.
When they eat the animal their child had named when it was born for dinner, the family must understand the sacrifice made. The cycle that is life when consuming meat. That something with feelings died to provide them with nutrition.
Rather than the detached society we have today, where meat comes from the store.

 

[bluethunder1962]

Well said Zoogster. Just goes to show it is good to se both sides of every story instead of being thick headed and just make fun of people who do see things the way you do. I never put anybody down because they eat meat or make fun of them. I do believe the reason God put some animals on this earth was for us to eat. Everything put on this earth is a gift from God. He is watching what we do with his gifts to us. That is the unethical part of all of this. HOW WE TREAT THE ANIMALS WE EAT. They live a life of hell just to be killed and eaten. Everybody can make fun of me all they want for not eating meat because I was not put on this earth to please any human and could care less about what people say about me.
When you listen to people that think different from you you might learn something. I just learned something from Zoogster. I never thought about the part about eating deer over store bought. It is a very good argument.
And for the person saying veggies don't look healthy. Like I said I do a LOT of animal rescue so I am with a lot of veggie women. I have never seen a fat ass veggie. Most all the women I meet while doing rescue have hot bodies.

 

[TexasPatriot.308]

because soy beans dont get the job done and you go round far**** fresh air.

 

[BeerSleeper]

Vegetarianism is the practice of only killing and devouring those things which cannot resist, and feeling morally superior about it.

I like vegans. More meat for me.

 

[Rail Driver]

My reply would be "Tell me why it's UNethical to eat meat."

 

[blarby]

Could be the solution to the hog problem, I suppose.

I find it not even slightly amusing that such a life form has found a way to populate in an area that will soon need it, and in such a rapid fashion.

The fact that we have a new food source that, by everyone who is involved in that situations' definition, cannot be exterminated, is telling in a life cycle of any environment or ecosystem.

"Life will find a way"


We've been afforded a new one, albeit one that differs from the great meat beasts that used to roam our nation from shore to shore- but a replacement none the less. One that this time, we can't kill off fast enough to even make a dent in the population...if those rumors are true.

Ethics ? Ecology ? Divine grant ?

You pick.

We can eat 'em... and we should. When beef is either 30 times the price of pork, or unobtainable... No one will be cursing the wild hogs.

 

[bluethunder1962]

texasp are you saying because I don't eat meat my farts don't stink. We have so much green in us it comes out almost pure oxygen. How is that a bad thing? We had this guy that all he ate was wild meat. We kept having to repaint the office becaust the paint would peel off everytime he farted.

 

[Tomcat47]

I have always liked the Native American angle on wildlife.....somehow connected!

And even biblical speaking ... you get that reference of why they are here.

I have always gave thanks for what I have, or have taken food wise!

Its how I roll...........

Foods from animal sources have complete proteins!

Unethical.........I dont think so!

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I won't get into the ethics of eating meat. You do your thing, and I'll do mine.
However, since this was posted in the hunting section, I'll talk about that for a minute.
Statistics prove that hunting is a necessity for keeping deer herds in check. Without hunting, the population would quickly grow beyond the capacity of the land. This would result in disease and starvation, which is much less humane than a bullet through the heart. Also, too many deer would cause large amounts of monetary loss in crops for farmers.

Also, hunting predators and nusiance animals like hogs are vital as well. Check out this summary of the wolf problem in Yellowstone, where hunting is not allowed.

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/yellowstone_wolf_experiment_out_1.htm

They are killing off the elk herds as well as deer, moose, antelope, and sheep. They have actually cut the elk herd in half. They are attacking horses, livestock and there have even been reports of them stalking children.

So as for the hunting aspect of killing animals, it is a necessity in some cases. Obviously I'm not talking about the wholesale slaughter of animals. There is a balance. The fact is, the vast majority of hunters are ethical and do much more for conservation of animals than non hunters will ever do.

 

[1911Tuner]

It's not a matter of ethics. It's a matter of survival and evolution.

Meat, and the complete proteins and amino acids contained therein allowed us to develop large brains, and it's necessary to fuel those big brains and insure their proper function.

Human beings are primarily carnivores. Our canine and incisor teeth, and our eyes mounted in the front of our skulls offers proof of that. If we'd been designed to eat grass, we'd have a mouth full of molars and our eyes would be on the sides of our heads.

Fighting a million years of evolution is a losing proposition.

 

[Art Eatman]

Enough. This is getting repetitive.

Bottom line: Biology is not about ethics. It's about survival of a species. Period. People can have any opinion they find comforting--but sincerity does not create truth.