Is It Moral to Eat Meat?

[Fifty]

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.

Let me just put it this way. You can roughly translate "prima facie" to "on the face of it", and "ultima facie" to "all things considered".

So, for instance, it seems prima facie wrong to let someone die when you could, without risk or effort, save the person. That is, given just that information, assuming everything else is held constant, it seems on the face of it that it is wrong to let someone die under such circumstances. But suppose there is more information: by letting that person die, you can save 100 other people who would otherwise die. It seems like, given this new information, that all-things-considered (or ultima facie), you are not wrong if you do not save the one person, and instead save the 100 people. Your alien case is an example of something that is prima facie wrong (genocide) but ultima facie permissible (genocide to save your species from hostile invaders). The case of the nazis is an example of something that is both prima facie wrong (genocide) and ultima facie wrong (genocide because you dont like jews, or whatever).

To say something is relative is to say that the truth conditions for wrongness ascriptions vary from person to person, or socio-historical context to socio-historical context. So, taking a socio-historical context version of relativism, a nazi speaks truly when he says "genocide of the jews is permissible", and I speak falsely when I say "the nazi genocide of the jews was wrong". A nazi speaks falsely when he says "genocide of the jews here in 2008 would be right", and I speak truly when I say "genocide of the jews here in 2008 would be wrong".

I hope that clears things up a bit.

 

[Sharwood]

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

Actually, it seems I may have been wrong, with this whole rhesus monkey thing aneeshm mentioned. But the point is, whereas we are genetically predisposed to kill our rival, take our mates by force, and take anything else we want as well, deception is something that must be learnt, whether by actually being taught how to lie, or simply seeing others do it. As I said, it appears I may have been wrong, but last I knew they had found small children incapable of deception, until they are shown how to deceive.

And yes, that does clear things up Fifty. now I understand what you were getting at. Interesting argument.

 

[LightFang]

And yes, that does clear things up Fifty. now I understand what you were getting at. Interesting argument.

So you don't have a response for it?

 

[Gogf]

Considering that the animals would have been killed and brought to market regardless of whether or not I buy them at my local Stop And Shop, I don't see how I can reasonably be held culpable for their death. Yes, if a million people decided not to eat meat, that WOULD have some effect, but I am not a million people.

 

[Narz]

Considering that the animals would have been killed and brought to market regardless of whether or not I buy them at my local Stop And Shop, I don't see how I can reasonably be held culpable for their death. Yes, if a million people decided not to eat meat, that WOULD have some effect, but I am not a million people.

Copout. That's like saying slavery is ok because if you didn't buy Uncle Tom, someone else would.

 

[Gogf]

Copout. That's like saying slavery is ok because if you didn't buy Uncle Tom, someone else would.

It's not a copout. I'm saying that it's moral for me as an individual to eat meat. Whether it's moral for humanity to eat meat is another matter... one which I do not have an answer for.

As for your analogy, I could theoretically free the slave, whereas I cannot bring a dead turkey back to life as a reprieve from my Thanksgiving table.

 

[Narz]

Sorry, it's a copout. Say you don't believe in Walmart or Exxon or whatever company you dislike but you shop there anyway since "if you don't, someone else will".

Every dime you don't spend on meat isn't automatically gonna be spent by someone else, that's just bad logic.

If individuals stop buying so much meat, stores & restaurants will stop ordered so much, fewer animals get slaughtered and the industry contracts. No consumer decision is unnoticed.

 

[Gogf]

Sorry, it's a copout. Say you don't believe in Walmart or Exxon or whatever company you dislike but you shop there anyway since "if you don't, someone else will".

That's a complete distortion of my logic. My argument is not that "someone else will eat the bird if I don't" it's "the bird is already dead, I might as well eat it."

Every dime you don't spend on meat isn't automatically gonna be spent by someone else, that's just bad logic.

You're correct, and that's why that is not the logic I am using.

If individuals stop buying so much meat, stores & restaurants will stop ordered so much, fewer animals get slaughtered and the industry contracts. No consumer decision is unnoticed.

That's just blatantly untrue. A gigantic farm out in the Midwest is NOT going to make any of their decisions based on whether or not one consumer in Connecticut buys meat that was at one point affiliated with them. If I was buying meat directly from the manufacturer, so to speak, there is a minuscule chance that my purchase would be noticed, but even that is infinitesimal. As it stands, there is no way whatsoever that my purchase will cause any more animals to be slaughtered.

 

[Narz]

Your philosophy is basically "meh, others won't change so why should I".

Hardly noble. And questionably moral, IMO.

 

[Gogf]

Your philosophy is basically "meh, others won't change so why should I".

Hardly noble. And questionably moral, IMO.

No it's not. My philosophy is "whether or not others change, I am not directly responsible for the death of any animal."

 

[Narz]

Regardless of allusions of direct or indirect you're still responsible for what you eat.

You act as if others do the dirty work (of killing the animal for you) makes you somehow more noble by your distance from the act when, if anything, it is less noble. At least a hunter gets for himself and makes no excuses.

Again, if consumers stopped eating so much meat the market would shrink. In a small enough deli (or school cafeteria) even a few less pounds of meat per day might be enough to cause them to order less (setting in motion a chain reaction). You don't know whether any individual decision on any given day will make a difference or not.

 

[mourndraken]

I've been vegetarian for 10 years. So no dead fish or animal parts for me. When I was young, I worked in a slaughterhouse one summer and I say those are evil places. Sure you can buy some flesh, but how many of you have the stomach to kill your food ? Can't really ask for something that you aren't willing to do yourself. If you do, you're not acting morally.

 

[Cannae]

No it's not immoral to eat meat in itself. However the means to get the meat is what defines it as moral or immoral.

 

[Sharwood]

So you don't have a response for it?

Nope. I'm contemplating. Never heard that particular argument before.

 

[G-Force Junkie]

It probably isn't very moral given the way the food animals are treated. I still eat meat, but I try to avoid making arguments claiming the moral highroad.

 

[Gogf]

Regardless of allusions of direct or indirect you're still responsible for what you eat.

You act as if others do the dirty work (of killing the animal for you) makes you somehow more noble by your distance from the act when, if anything, it is less noble. At least a hunter gets for himself and makes no excuses.

Again, if consumers stopped eating so much meat the market would shrink. In a small enough deli (or school cafeteria) even a few less pounds of meat per day might be enough to cause them to order less (setting in motion a chain reaction). You don't know whether any individual decision on any given day will make a difference or not.

Honestly, Narz, your argument is ludicrous. If you honest expect anyone to believe that my abstaining from purchasing a turkey will spare the life of some future turkey that was raised for slaughter, because a meat-packer bought less meat, because a distributor bought less meat, because a supermarket bought less meat, because a single consumer bought one less turkey, then you're completely nuts. That's just not going to happen, and you perfectly well know it.

 

[aneeshm]

An act is moral or immoral on its own merits, Gogf.

Ivory and rhino horn is an illegal product because these are endangered species. When you buy something illegal from a poacher, can you justify it using the argument, "Well, the animal was dead, and somebody else will buy it anyway, so there's nothing wrong in me buying it."?

Being part of a chain of immorality makes one morally culpable, whether or not the chain would continue without one's involvement.

 

[RalofTyr]

 

[aneeshm]

I don't know why, whenever such a thread reaches a certain point, the "Let's try to irk vegetarians by telling them that we enjoy eating meat" phase begins. Maybe it's because the meat-eaters have run out of arguments, or something. In any case, it doesn't really add anything to the debate. For instance, cannibalism could be "defended" on the same grounds that it is "Tasty, tasty murder", but nobody does it, because we consider it immoral and because it isn't much of an argument anyway.

And by the way, not all meat is murder. If that girl were better looking, I would gladly have meated her.

 

[LightFang]

No it's not immoral to eat meat in itself. However the means to get the meat is what defines it as moral or immoral.

Okay, but did you hear any of my (and other people's) arguments against eating meat period? Would you like to answer any of them?