Talk:Ethics of eating meat/Archive 1

message: I'd like for someone to review the "Necessity" section. In particular, the reference to an Inuit dependence on meat has no citation, and should be removed unless someone wants to find one for it. 
Also, in the "Harming Plants Hurts Animals" section, the sentence about the alfalfa harvest seems counter-productive since alfalfa is used almost exclusively to feed animals. Also, a citation for the section would be appropriate, so readers would know which Steven Davis work is being referenced.Indeterminate 07:23 17 April 2006 (UTC)
:I added a ref to Steven Davis. --Hq3473 14:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa.... no way. That list comes from Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation and is widely regarded as a good list of reasons why you wouldn't kill people or animals. Most vegetarians do believe that animals are sentient creatures who deserve at least some consideration. If they do not want to die then they have right over their own life and should not be killed. This is the same justification as we use against killing people who do not want to be killed. Part of the ethics of freedom or 'rights'. That is to say, the animals has the right to judge its own life. Now, trees may well have that too depending on whether you judge them as sentient or not - you haven't really disproven the point. In any case, that is simply a statement about what vegetarians say, not that it is true.
You're making pretty broad statements about animal's capacity for kinship there. Many mammals and birds clearly do remember other animals for long periods, especially their offspring. Cows, pigs and chickens have also been shown to remember other animals and establish relationships with them. I don't see any sources for you claims either, and to say the elephant is one of the few exception (perhaps on the back of the idiom about elephants having good memories) is pretty weak. --komencanto 11:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you some sort of dualist then?  Do animals lack souls and thus their pain is somehow different from ours?  The amusing thing is that those disciplines you mention would laugh at you if you tried to make that kind of claim. Deleuze 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If a chicken is depressed and wants to end it all, is it ethically sound for me to assist the suicide, and then eat her afterwards? Beerathon 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removing text

message: The NPOV of the portion of the article relating to the sentience of plants is questionable at best. Simply because certain plants exhibit more rapid, pronounced movement than others is by no means actual evidence that plants are conscious and aware of their environment. Ralphael 10:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the whole section seems a bit strange to me.  I've removed this sentance that was at the end since it really doesn't seem to have much to do with plant conciousness at all.  "Crop cultivation usually involves the death of insects and small mammals - something most vegetarians ignore."  --Frantik 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed this section, it has no proper citation, only a link to an article talking about the study briefly. The only claim in the article is that plants respond to environmental changes. This is not a sign of consciousness, automatic responses do not make you self aware. If anyone disagrees please find a good citation before putting it back. HighInBC 17:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plant consciousness

message: I removed this sentence about anthropomorphism in the 'ethics of killing for food' section:  "However this assumption can be seen as anthropomorphism, or the applying of human-like traits or feelings to non-human things."
This sentence is better off in the discussion beween vegetarians and non vegetarians.  It is quite clear that it is anthropomorphism.. but what isn't clear is wether or not it is an incorrect assumption.  Pain and pleasure are human feelings, yet i don't doubt other animals feel them.  They may not experience them in the exact same way you or I do, but then again I don't even know if I experience pain in the same way as any other person.
--Frantik 06:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anthropomorphism 

message: I do not want to step on any one's toes here, so I have made a duplicate of this article in my userspace. You can find it here: User:HighInBC/Ethics of eating meat/major reformat archived
Before I make a major change, I will set my copy to the current revision, make the change in my userspace and post a request for comment here. Once I post a request for comment changes can be made to the version in my userspace and then discussed here before effecting the actual article. I am doing this out of consideration.
Please note that I will still be performing lesser changes in the conventional manner. I will probably only use this when I do a complete reformatting to an easier to read article.
:* I have done a major reformatting of this article, before I replace the current one with it I wanted to give fair notice and give people a chance to offer their opinions. You can see the current version at User:HighInBC/Ethics of eating meat/major reformat archived. If nobody has any valid objections by tomorrow I am going to replace this article with the new reformatted one. HighInBC 18:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have implemented the reformatting, let me know what you think. HighInBC 14:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair notice 

message: This page does not seem to bring into question whether being a vegetarian is ethical, nobody seems to be denying that. The page seems to question whether eating meat is ethical.
The name Ethics of eating meat makes more sense to me since eating meat is the ethical question. Any comments? I will change the page name tomorrow unless a good argument is presented. HighInBC 17:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the name of this article to Ethics of eating meat HighInBC 18:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have never heard an arguement that not eating meat is unethical. And if it is or isn't the subject of the article is ethics of eating meat. And article on the ethics of vegetarianism would be about if it is moral to not eat meat. A sublte distinction. HighInBC 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics of vegetarianism vs. Ethics of eating meat 

message: * "One should survive in the manner that causes the least harm" should IMHO include a rebuttal that not eating meat may not cause the least harm i.e. the "The farming of plants harms animals" potentially as bad as meat eating.--Hq3473 15:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Good point, I will add that. HighInBC 16:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Interesting point, I agree. I have made that change. HighInBC 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I still feel that this heading mixes some arguments together, such as feeling no pain and having no soul. I will attempt to correct it, keeping in mind that there is a separate free will argument.--Hq3473 15:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Better. Thanks for the help, I have done so much with this article it is hard to notice things like that after a point. HighInBC 16:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Both for eating meat - climate & intercontinental transport of fresh veggies, grazing dependent ecologies (eg. meadows) - and eating vegetables - pure energy consumption during producing. - G3, 14:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas for arguments and rebuttals 

message: I propose we delete the Veggie Pride link at the bottom of the article(Ethics_of_eating_meat#External_links), while it may be a notable organization/event the link itself does not take a reader to any useful information tha discusses ethics of eating meat. I will assume good intentions for now, but personally i do not see how following the link will give a reader any more information on ethics of eating meat that then the article does not already provide. All the points made in manifesto are already made in "Cause least harm" and "Animals have feelings and can suffer"  subsections. --Hq3473 15:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POossible Spam?

message: I have deleted the rebuttal added by FrancisTyers. This is the argument, and the rebuttal by FrancisTyers:
:Damage to the environment
:A combination of the Conservation ethic and the environmental benefits of vegetarianism, this argument claims that consuming meat is less ethical than vegetarianism because it is more damaging to the environment. More detailed information on this argument (and criticism of it) is available in the topic Environmental vegetarianism.
:Rebuttal
:* Most vegetarians engage in far more environmentally unsound practices than eating meat.
No references or data are brought in justification of that rebuttal. Most vegetarians? Even the millions of vegetarians in India? Since most vegetarians in the world may well be in poor countries, it is probable that they use less cars, fly less, have less central heating, etc. than most meat-eaters.
Furthermore, the rebuttal is extremely vague. What are those environmentally unsound practices most vegetarians engage in? I would be surprised to find that there are some that are "far more environmentally unsound" than eating meat; the impact of eating meat is well known to be one of the most costly practices in environmental terms; perhaps the most costly.
Lastly, it is a tu quoque argument. In other words, it says nothing about whether eating meat is or is not environmentally costly, just that vegetarians are not better people than non-vegetarians on other counts. There may be as many rapists among vegetarians as among meat-eaters, but I don't think that that qualifies as a rebuttal of ethical arguments against eating meat.
It is true that such tu quoque arguments are often brought up in discussions about vegetarianism, and that may justify their being on this page. But certainly they would have to be refined and supported much more than in the above rebuttal, and address the issue as to in what way it may be relevant (for instance: you might say that it shows that vegetarians themselves do not really believe what they say when they bring up environmental arguments, because if they did they would also refrain from driving cars, etc.).
David Olivier 13:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. The reason I added it is because the rest of the page is also a logical fallacy. And I am not making a point, I am merely adding information that in future should be cited. If we were to remove all the uncited information we would be left with quite a bare page. - FrancisTyers 13:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, if you are going to edit war over it, leave it out. - FrancisTyers 13:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to it if it didn't make what it says appear as an accepted fact, and if it addressed (in one way or another) the issue of its being a logical fallacy. David Olivier 14:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Tu Quoque" environmental rebuttal

message: Admittedly this section needs is only a stub (is it possible to flag just a section as a stub?). I believe however that it is important to frame the scope of the problem. The discussions so far seem extraordinarly removed from the immense amount of suffering and death involved.
If some find the wording POV, please attempt to make it NPOV, rather than deleting the section. 
David Olivier 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added a "scope" section"

message: Like the "scope" section, this section seems necessary to me. Not all vegetarians see eating meat as an issue for public intervention, but many do. I will add references to the website of the movement for the abolition of meat. The reference to the Veggie Pride site should come under this heading.
David Olivier 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added a "private/public issue" section

message: This article should be vastly expanded. I have flagged it as a stub. David Olivier 09:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Olivierd, perhaps you can label some sections as section stubs HighInBC 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: Hi all. This article has improved an enormous amount since I looked at it months ago, excellent work by all involved. (Last time I looked, I just rolled my eyes and went elsewhere).
However, there are still a few bits which I'd like to change. There is a lot of 'it could be argued...', and while I appreciate that you're trying to cover all the angles, I think it would be better to cite stuff published by (eg) ethical philosophers, animal rights activists, farming industry lobbies, etc. This would involve cutting some of the lamest arguments, eg in the 'necessity' section, 'It could be argued that if it is moral for any human to eat meat then it is moral for all people to eat meat.' I don't think you will be able to find a reputable source making this argument because it is so flimsy. (replace the word 'meat' with 'human flesh' and think about this.)
If no-one has any objections, I will chop a few of these 'some people argue...' bits one-by-one over the next few days. Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatly improved since a few months ago, but... 

message: There are references in this article ascribed to Abrahamic or Judeo-Christian traditions that are not correct. Indeed, I removed Islam from that equation because the Prophet was very clear about the punishment brought about by causing animal suffering. 
The obscured reference to Judaism contained within this should actually state that according to Judaism, Jews have a soul Gentiles do not have, never mind animals, the Nefesh Elokis. Animals actually have the same souls that Gentiles have but not the superior Jewish soul. 
But there is also the concept of "Gilgul" within which the possibility that the soul of a human being coming down to this world in the body of an animal in order to reach its perfection exists. In such a case, the animal is driven by the standard animal soul and the human soul is imprisoned within it, with very little opportunity to express itself. When the animal dies, it is not the soul of the animal that goes to heaven, but rather the soul of the human being that was trapped in it. 
Therefore, the statement in the article should reflect the fact that some elements of Judaism believe that within some animals are fully sentient human souls, to kill and eat them would cause suffering and be unethical, and that within animals and gentiles in general is a soul but a lower kind of soul. By the logic of the topic, that would make it OK to eat gentiles too ... 
[ src : Arizal's Sha'ar HaGilgulim Hakdoma 22, Arizal's Sefer HaLikutim beginning of Bereishit, Nachmanides commentary on Genesis 1:29 and in parshat Eikev. Also, Proverbs 12:10: "The righteous person considers the soul (life) of his or her animal." Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Horeb, Chapter 60, #415 and 416, Chapter 72, #482,  and the principle of " tsa'ar ba'alei chayim " ]
That seems to leave Christianity alone on the " no soul " stand but then within Christianity, it was widely believed that women did even have a soul until quite recently.
Your comments.
195.82.106.244 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jewish Question 

message: I am very happy to see so much work being done here, the article has certainly improved since I last looked. HighInBC 20:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am very happy 

message: :Many hunter gatherer tribes will apologize to or thank an animal which has been killed, excusing themselves on the basis that they had to eat the animal in order to survive.
This statement is actually fairly untrue in many cases.  Native American tribes, for example, ask permission to hunt before they do and then thank them afterwords. While it may be true that some cultures "apologize" afterwords, I can't think of an example.  In addition, the cultures doesnt feel any need to "excuse" themselves because under there own ethics they have fulfilled there obligations. I'd update it... but I really don't have any sources... Just something to update latter. ---J.S (t|c) 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. HighInBC 13:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Being respectful to animals

message: *eating fortified foods, B12-tablets or dairy products and eggs may prevent or reduce these health problems.
How exactly is this more ethical than consuming meat itself? Is the source of B12 vitamin in tablets synthetic or natural? Does (possible) synthetic production cause less harm to nature than eating meat (energy cost, transportation, chemical spills, pollution, etc..)? Is imprisoning, exploiting and letting animals die "naturally" somehow better than imprisoning, exploiting and then killing them? Are food additives ethically acceptable?
IMO that rebuttal asks more questions than it answers. - G3, 15:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  B12 vitamin 

message: Has anyone thought to add to the list of ethically considerable factors the human situation in slaughterhouses? I had never thought of possible issues of abused humans in the production process until I read a Mother Jones article back in 2001. According to the article most meatpacking plants have little insurance or pention plans; often doctors are in-house company men not looking for the patient's best interests. The article probably discusses more, but I've not read it in 5 years.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2001/07/meatpacking.html
-Brian C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.252.210 (talk • contribs) 
:*The subject of this article is the ethics of eating meat. I think it is a real stretch to include how some humans are treated in the production of some meat. HighInBC 21:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  Many people (myself included) choose to avoid eating meat because of its mode of production, not just because they are opposed to the eating of flesh.  Details of factory farming are absolutely essential to this discussion. Deleuze 22:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social or more humanist concers 

message: To who put the totallydisputed tag onto this article, please outline your specific concerns, if not I will remove it. HighInBC 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  totallydisputed 

message: I find the sub-section on health to be completely off topic. How does whether meat is healthier or not make it more or less ethical to eat meat? 
Doing medical research on animals, for example, is surely beneficial to humans; but is it ethical? That whole section should go. - Cribananda 04:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, it is an argument towards it being ethical, not evidence in itself. If I cannot consider my own survival and health in my ethical considerations then I might as well just die now. Why is my life less worthy of ethical consideration than that of an animal? By extension of your argument eating vegetables is no more ethical. What about taking antibiotics and killing innocent bacteria? I am not saying you are wrong, but I don't think you are right. The section is a valid as the article itself is. HighInBC 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your life isn't less worthy of ethical considerations.  There is no requirement to give up your life to become a vegetarian.  Eating a balanced, healthy diet is quite possible as a vegetarian.  Giving up a pleasurable activity might be a sacrifice, but that doesn't mean it is an unethical act.  Your discussion of bacteria and plants is another line of argumentation entirely, and mixing the two only muddles the issue.  Suffice it to say that most vegetarians (and scientists) believe that plants and microbes lack consciousness (or at least the ability to feel pain) whereas most animals do not. Deleuze 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was reffering to the health problems caused by not eating meat, that are clearly cited in the health section. And as for conscioiusness, that was not in discussion when I compared to vegetables and bacteria. I still believe the section is valid. HighInBC 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This sort of far stretched reasoning tends to confuse me. What does murdering a person have to do with this? Or by murder did you mean killing an animal? Either way having children with less chance of birth defects alone morally justifies eating meat. HighInBC 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health?? 

message: Perhaps someone should include an argument that the human body is designed to eat meat.  The argument could say something along the lines of:
* The incisors and canines are designed for cutting and tearing meat.
* Like carnivores and omnivores, humans produce hydrochloric acid in their stomachs, while pure herbivores  do not.
* The length of the human small intestine is halfway between that of herbivores (which have longer intestines) and carnivores (which have shorter intestines).
--JesseG88 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is mentioned under the heading Eating meat is a natural behaviour, admittedly not in much detail.  There is some contention about this point as demonstrated here and here, links I turfed off the human page - the general scientific opinion appears to be in favour of omnivorousness, though most vegetarian-driven theory leans toward herbivorousness through what appears to be a process of noticeably selective taxonomy.  I may be biased, but I think its laughable to seriously compare humans to ruminants!  It may also be true that we are able to digest meat, but on balance I think we are nearer the herbivore end of the spectrum: we can maintain a healthy diet through vegetarianism, but we'd become very unhealthy living on meat alone.  Right, I'm off for a chicken salad. Mmmmm... best of both worlds... Beerathon 12:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say we would be very unhealthy on meat alone.  But the Inuits, who survived on meat alone before colonialization, were very healthy, happy, and long-lived, while southern Indians have some of the shortest life spans in the world.  Primitive meat-eaters are generally healthier than primitive vegetarians.  I actually think we are nearer to the carnivore end of the spectrum.  Check this out for a very interesting paper on that subject. Keep in mind that the article was written in 1935.  --JesseG88 02:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro meat consumption argument: Human body designed to digest meat