Is It Moral to Eat Meat?

LightFang said:

So you do believe in absolutes!

Click to expand...

Nope, it's just my POV. And I've come up with a few situations where genocide would be condoneable, even necessary:
1. Alien invasion; if we have to wipe them out to stop them, we shuld do it.

2. Disease; if every single Frenchman has a highly contagious, incurable disease, that mutates rapidly, it would be better to wipe them out than to risk them contaminating others. I probably shouldn't have said that, Bush might claim the French have such an illness, and use those WMDs he has to get rid of them.

It means returning to polyculture to produce our grains, our fruits, our vegetables. It means eating what's available LOCALLY and IN SEASON - there is no virtue in eating tofu if it has to be trucked in from a thousand miles away when there is a, hopefully organic, meat source nearby.

Click to expand...

And would not a vegetarian diet consisting of organic and local products be superior?

Ultimately, you are left looking at what you eat, not just where you got it from. And it is easier to pay attention to what than where. In your example of tofu being shipped from far away, are you including the fact that soybeans fertilize the soil? Personally, I hate using tofu, but I do sometimes when I'm not up to a proper meal. It's organic (GMO free, of course) and from the US.

I would rather eat tofu from 1500 miles away grown organically than a dog, cat or cow from a local source. Transportation included, I find it less offensive to myself, society and the ecosystem. Trophic levels have a tremendous impact on the overall environmental cost of consumption. Given the trophic level of meat, the resources required in its production (water is a big one), and the damage to the land by both the animal and the production of it's feed, I think the transportation is a wash at worst.

That said, I agree with your post (see name) and I appreciate you laying out many of the issues. For me, diet is an agricultural statement.

Sharwood said:

Nope, it's just my POV. And I've come up with a few situations where genocide would be condoneable, even necessary:
1. Alien invasion; if we have to wipe them out to stop them, we shuld do it.

2. Disease; if every single Frenchman has a highly contagious, incurable disease, that mutates rapidly, it would be better to wipe them out than to risk them contaminating others. I probably shouldn't have said that, Bush might claim the French have such an illness, and use those WMDs he has to get rid of them.

Click to expand...

So it is right for them! You can't have it both ways.

And, hmm, alien invasion. That's not really a genocide, that's war. Self-defense and all that. The systematic elimination would be only if they refused to negotiate, which would be rather stupid of them and that would make me question how they got the tech to invade us in the first place.

And as for disease: is it ok to sterilize people who have inheritable diseases? Like, say, Huntington's.

LightFang said:

So you do believe in absolutes!

Click to expand...

Lightfang, please note that I don’t doubt your intellectual veracity or intelligence, and no, I certainly wouldn’t presume to judge you as arrogant (to do so would be grossly prejudicial and arrogant myself) but I think at this point I need to cut to the chase -

Do I believe this question is irreconcilable? Yes, I do.

Do I believe some things are absolute? Absolutely! Do I believe there are some things which are intrinsically relative? Again, yes I do. I’m not enough of an absolutist to believe everything is absolute. Nor, do I believe, should I be.

What I can absolutely hold a belief in is that a) I’m not a “relativist”, additionally you don’t know either myself or Sharwood thus you’re in a very poor position to make a judgment that either of us are, and that b) While I more than respect someone else’s lifestyle choice to be vegetarian or vegan themselves, I absolutely and in the strongest possible terms reject outright the concept that someone else living in another country and culture, who’s had that sense of country and culture ingrained into them by some environmental source, has an absolute moral right to judge me as immoral simply because I don’t agree with them in terms of eating meat or not. Indeed for someone to force their morals on me over an issue such as vegetarianism, especially in light of my tolerance I view as immoral.

You’ve made the statement that “You guys (I assume you include me) are acting sensitive and tolerant”. That’s a direct statement aimed at anyone raising the issue of moral relativity, which included myself. I hope you’re not making a statement implying that any tolerance or sensitivity on my part is pretence – to do so would be to cast negative aspersions on my character without you having the faintest clue as to who I am, or by what code of honour (or dishonour) I do, and have, led my life by. To do so would not just be prejudicial, and immoral but would seriously undermine your credibility, especially in a discussion about morality.

The point that I initially intended to make, quite simply, was that if anyone was to call me immoral simply because I eat meat, my response, quite rightly would be to ask “Who the **** do you think you are and by what authority do you make such a judgement?”

I’d then go on to question their morality, describe them in terms far stronger than the word “Arrogant”.

With all due respect, you’re beginning to drift from the objective role of debate facilitator to potentially a subjective pontificator and would-be judge of character, when you have no authority to do so. I’d suggest you go have a tall glass of your favourite bevvie, and think about it some….

Couldn't you isolate the infected population instead of killing them all?

And I don't see why we would have to kill every single alien (or any other group, for that matter) in order to win a war. Many wars have been fought without genocide. Why should the alien one be different?



Both examples fail.

Sharwood: You seem to be conflating the relative/absolute distinction with the prima facie/ultima facie distinction.

To say that morality is relative across, say, socio-historical contexts, is to say that the nazis spoke truly when they said "genocide is right". It isn't that it was true just for them, it was true simpliciter. Under this sort of relativity, we speak falsely when we say "what the nazis did was wrong". Of course, someone who says "genocide is wrong" today would be right. Thats just one sort of relativity. You could also claim relativity across persons, or something like that, but it gets you into similar dilemmas.

That distinction--between relative and absolute truths--is not the same thing as the sort of distinction you seem to be citing in your alien example. In that case, we have a distinction between what is prima facie wrong and what is ultima facie wrong. It is prima facie wrong to commit genocide. That is to say, all other moral considerations aside, it is wrong to commit genocide. There may, however, be overriding moral considerations. For example, if committing genocide against a hostile, invading species of aliens is the only way to preserve our species, then genocide in that case may be morally permissible.

Almost nobody would argue that moral prescriptions like "don't kill" are always ultima facie true. That isn't relativism, that's just common sense.

Heading back to the meat-eating case, the point is that there are no overriding considerations which seem to make eating meat permissable for us 1st world citizens. If it were the case that, say, we'd all die horrible deaths if we stopped eating meat, then yes, eating meat would be permissable. The point is, we wouldn't. We'd be just fine, and probably even better off, if we stopped eating meat.

Ecofarm said:

Couldn't you isolate the infected population instead of killing them all?

And I don't see why we would have to kill every single alien (or any other group, for that matter) in order to win a war. Many wars have been fought without genocide. Why should the alien one be different?

Spoiler :

As if we could fight a civilization capable of intersteller travel in the first place. How exactly would we chase them home to kill them all?

Both examples fail.

Click to expand...

I said the disease was highly contagious, and prone to mutation. Better safe than sorry and all that. To use an argument some of your fellow Americans might use; Who cares, they're French?

As for the aliens, you obviously haven't read The Puppet Masters by Robert Heinlein.

Both examples succeed.

Fifty said:

Sharwood: You seem to be conflating the relative/absolute distinction with the prima facie/ultima facie distinction.

To say that morality is relative across, say, socio-historical contexts, is to say that the nazis spoke truly when they said "genocide is right". It isn't that it was true just for them, it was true simpliciter. Under this sort of relativity, we speak falsely when we say "what the nazis did was wrong". Of course, someone who says "genocide is wrong" today would be right. Thats just one sort of relativity. You could also claim relativity across persons, or something like that, but it gets you into similar dilemmas.

That distinction--between relative and absolute truths--is not the same thing as the sort of distinction you seem to be citing in your alien example. In that case, we have a distinction between what is prima facie wrong and what is ultima facie wrong. It is prima facie wrong to commit genocide. That is to say, all other moral considerations aside, it is wrong to commit genocide. There may, however, be overriding moral considerations. For example, if committing genocide against a hostile, invading species of aliens is the only way to preserve our species, then genocide in that case may be morally permissible.

Almost nobody would argue that moral prescriptions like "don't kill" are always ultima facie true. That isn't relativism, that's just common sense.

Heading back to the meat-eating case, the point is that there are no overriding considerations which seem to make eating meat permissable for us 1st world citizens. If it were the case that, say, we'd all die horrible deaths if we stopped eating meat, then yes, eating meat would be permissable. The point is, we wouldn't. We'd be just fine, and probably even better off, if we stopped eating meat.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't understand the Latin. I can't even guess at its meaning, due to the context in which it is written. It's kind of difficult to either agree with you or argue with you when I don't understand what you're saying.

I have my own moral code, what I believe is right and wrong, but I also understand that others have a different moral code. I wouldn't blame them for their actions or believe them immoral for doing so, if they had been raised to believe that what they were doing was the right thing. I may feel it necessary to protect their victims. I find somewhat like Goering, who was not an Anti-Semite and used the Nazi party to achieve power, far more evil than someone like Hitler, who genuinely believed he was doing the right thing. Is that a better description of my views?

raketooy said:

We, as other animals, have developed in evolution the natural urge to keep our species alive.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. We are created by genes who use us to make more copies of themselves. Therefore, all our inborn urges are directed towards the self-interest of our genes. This often comes into conflict with the interests of the species or the individual.

From the moral POV (reductio ad absurdum):

We also have an inborn urge to murder, steal, lie, rape, and form coalitions of men who go and attack others for resources (women, food, and control over something which may act as a source of these two being the primary three).

aneeshm said:

Incorrect. We are created by genes who use us to make more copies of themselves. Therefore, all our inborn urges are directed towards the self-interest of our genes. This often comes into conflict with the interests of the species or the individual.

From the moral POV (reductio ad absurdum):

We also have an inborn urge to murder, steal, lie, rape, and form coalitions of men who go and attack others for resources (women, food, and control over something which may act as a source of these two being the primary three).

Click to expand...

Lying is a learned behaviour. Everything else you said is correct though.

warpus said:

Well.. how can there be absolute morality? Morality is a human created construct, and is thus relative and up for debate..

which is what we're doing here

Click to expand...

But given the constraints of human nature, don' you think that an absolute morality could be devised which would be valid within those constraints?

Fifty said:

But it tastes...so...good! I agree with what you said, but I can't do it!

Even the best vegetarian food I've had (generally thai, indian, or italian dishes) is only as good as moderately good meat dishes (e.g. a pretty good steak). I have not met a vegetarian dish yet that can even begin to compete with the best meat dishes (i.e. an expertly prepared, high-quality steak).

And it hasn't been for lack of trying. I've tried lots of vegetarian dishes, both stuff I've prepared myself and stuff eaten at restaurants.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the food you get at Indian restaurants isn't the food Indian people eat at home, it's a different breed altogether. To get a taste of how real Indian food is like, you'll have to learn from some Indian person who knows how food is cooked at home.

Fifty said:

I imagine that once one spends enough time away from meat, you lose or at least lessen your taste for it, but I can't wait! The palates of extreme raw vegans are horrible anyways. All you have to do is mash up some random sampling of cacao, durian, a crap ton of fruit, and various veggies, and they'll swear its better than the best cooked food on earth.

Click to expand...

That's just silly. Being compassionate and moral doesn't mean having no taste or being a nutjob or bore. Arthur C. Clarke was a vegetarian and a teetotaller, and he was an very reasonable and extremely interesting man. But then again, I think that you knew that, being a philosopher.



I apologise in advance if the following sounds preachy, but I thought it may help:

There are two ways you can go about it, depending on how much willpower you have.

The first is cold turkey.

The second is gradual. You can decide that for breakfast, no meat. Make it into a routine. You slip up - doesn't matter. Happens to all of us. Don't make it a goal in the sense that if you waver, you've "failed" and don't need to make an effort any longer. The mistake made is that usually we treat even the goal of building a routine as a mini cold-turkey, and give up at the first sign of discouragement. If we make a process instead of a product our goal, it works out.

Slowly, work it into more and more meals.

And always make sure that taste is maintained, so that you don't feel you're missing anything.

The mind is like a drunk mad monkey bitten by a scorpion - it will resist wildly at first. But it always gives in eventually.

Sharwood said:

Lying is a learned behaviour. Everything else you said is correct though.

Click to expand...

The more generic "deception" - acting in such a manner as to induce a belief not in conformance with reality in another individual, usually in order to gain an individual advantage - is innate. "Lying" is merely an extension of that to language.

In some experiments conducted on (IIRC) rhesus monkeys, they were found to possess the ability to deceive.

Bill3000 said:

It is moral to eat meat, because the last thing I want is to be a vegetarian and have my farts not smell.

Click to expand...

Who gave you this ridiculous notion?

aneeshm said:

The more generic "deception" - acting in such a manner as to induce a belief not in conformance with reality in another individual, usually in order to gain an individual advantage - is innate. "Lying" is merely an extension of that to language.

In some experiments conducted on (IIRC) rhesus monkeys, they were found to possess the ability to deceive.

Click to expand...

Cool, I was not aware of that. Do you know if this is a primate thing, a mammal thing, or what?

Sharwood said:

Lying is a learned behaviour. Everything else you said is correct though.

Click to expand...

Why do you say that?

Perfection said:

Why do you say that?

Click to expand...

Because we are genetically predisposed to murder, rape and steal. I remember seeing a study on it just last year. There are also a bunch of scientists in New Zealand that are working on discovering a "violence gene," and seem to be coming up with some things. Sorry I don't have any links, but these were all either in newspapers or journals at uni.

I quoted lying, not murdering, raping and stealing. Why is lying a learned rather then innate behavior?

aneeshm said:

Who gave you this ridiculous notion?

Click to expand...

If you are vegan, your farts do not smell (well, it takes some weeks). This is because of an almost total lack of sulfer in one's diet... the primary cause of smell. Hydrogen sulfides, derrived in low oxygen environments, stink. The other source of smell.. methane.. disapates instantaneously and does not carry any significant smell.

In fact, friends cannot detect a smell even for a big fart in a car with closed windows.

When this first happened to me, I was like "what the hell is the deal". So, I researched it and found it's because of sulfur. No sulfur in diet... no smell.

I don't just act like my crap don't stink. I'll flat out tell you - it doesn't.

Ecofarm said:

If you are vegan, your farts do not smell (well, it takes some weeks). This is because of an almost total lack of sulfer in one's diet... the primary cause of smell. Hydrogen sulfides, derrived in low oxygen environments, stink. The other source of smell.. methane.. disapates instantaneously and does not carry any significant smell.

In fact, friends cannot detect a smell even for a big fart in a car with closed windows.

When this first happened to me, I was like "what the hell is the deal". So, I researched it and found it's because of sulfur. No sulfur in diet... no smell.

I don't just act like my crap don't stink. I'll flat out tell you - it doesn't.

Click to expand...

I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan, and my farts do stink occasionally, though only rarely.





This is very, very embarrassing. Once, I had read that some old Hindu book on yoga claimed that someone following a particularly strict vegetarian (equivalent to a modern-day vegan) diet would not suffer from stinking farts and that his crap would not smell. I laughed and dismissed as mere fantasy or glorification of vegetarians. I now realise that they were absolutely right. This has been a lesson in humility.

In fact, reading old books and seeing how consistently they were right when they had no right to be has made me more scientific and open minded - it has taught me that I should not dismiss a claim, no matter how improbable it seems at first glance, without some verification.