Should We Eat Meat?

Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?

Next question in Animal Rights

You are seeing 160 Comments on this Argument. See all 664 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

Animals Have Feelings, Awareness and Preferences

- From PETA

Open Argument Go to this Argument

and animals feel pain

One of the guidelines of a yogic lifestyle is to "first do no harm". Killing and eating an animal is defnitely harming it.

- Santa Cruz Mom July 13, 2008 6:42PM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Irrelevant

Humans, pigs and chickens are very different. However much of it comes down to the simple laws of nature. We, just like all the others peta has cited, are animals. We are omnivorous and utilize many of the same concepts that are found in other animal species in terms of diet.

In some cases, species have worked together to form their dietary chain. In other cases, the food chain is usually one-way. For our needs, animals serve a high degree of utility as both food and resources and are used within the laws of nature.

The key point to take away from this is that there are generally no laws of reciprocation between species. I have no expectation of a chicken reciprocating rights nor should I be expected to bestow a chicken with the rights of a human. In essence, the laws of man can not usurp the law of nature.

- sumwatt July 24, 2008 10:29AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Falacious
  
  Any argument based on the law of nature is absurd on its face. We modify nature in every aspect of our lives for any number of reasons. Ultimately any decision on how to treat beings that are different from each other will involve some subjective values, but we can certainly work our way closer to the crux of the issue. For instance, do animals feel pain? Certainly they do. We don't doubt that other human beings feel pain the way we do, and the "lower" levels of our neural networks are very similar to those of animals. One might then go on to consider higher level functions, such as being able to look forward to a future event. These sorts of capabilities might be assigned arbitrary moral value, but we should at least be aware of these capabilities in order to decide whether or not they merit value. Would you say it is ok to kill a mentally retarded person if they were incapable of reciprocating rights? By your logic this would be morally permissible.
  
  - ToddG August 21, 2008 5:47PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Not Falacious, but simply correct.
    
    My comment isn't absurd. It's pointing to the relevant fact that man is a part of nature and the course of human discovery or adaptation is natural. That is unless you are a God, and not encumbered by the trappings of nature.
    
    Note that I do mention that this is largely an issue of species and nature. While a mentally retarded person may not explicitly reciprocate rights, our species bestows the framework of rights onto other humans because the human species reciprocates those rights amongst ourselves. Whether the human is retarded or extremely intelligent is irrelevant. But let's flip your question on its head:
    
    Is it morally and ethically permissible for a dog to kill retarded dog? If reciprocation is irrelevant, then all life on this planet must have a universal moral and ethical code that is above and beyond nature of which there is no evidence.
    
    - sumwatt August 21, 2008 8:22PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Ah. Simply correct.
      
      It makes debating much easier when arguments are so conveniently titled. :-)
      
      I'm afraid yours is a circular argument. "our species bestows the framework of rights onto other humans because the human species reciprocates those rights amongst ourselves." What? We give ourselves rights because we give ourselves rights? That doesn't help explain why we do it. Nor does it explain why we don't do it to other species. Your speciesist views remain unfounded. Much like racist and sexist views. Upon scrutiny, arguments do not successfully justify excluding any sentient beings from the scope of morality.
      
      As for your question about the morality of dogs, your argument will only end up whittling down to "well they don't do it, so why should I?" This argument just doesn't hold. There are plenty of heinous acts performed by humans on other humans, but you'd never use that to justify a relative code of ethics. There is something above and beyond the laws of nature: logic and reason.
      
      - mike August 21, 2008 9:57PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Now I see...
    
    ...why you called it a fallacy. Your assumption is that I'm arguing the "appeal to nature".
    
    However let me clarify my point: the appeal to nature is only fallacious if you can define what is unnatural. If everything, as a part of my original statement and argument assumes, there is no such thing as "unnatural", my point stands. I do understand the point of the fallacy but the fallacy itself is only as good as the expectation that nature and non-nature (or anti-nature) are both universal. The argument I use here is that our system of diet is derived from a system of reciprocation that is within the framework of nature.
    
    - sumwatt August 21, 2008 8:59PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Regarding: But animals farm, hunt and eat meat...
  
  You said, "We are omnivorous and utilize many of the same concepts that are found in other animal species in terms of diet."
  No other animal creates intensive animal agriculture that produces global warming and is bad for their species health.
  
  Moreover, we have the capacity to act ethically. It doesn't matter what other animals do and whether or not they follow our same moral code. Their behavior will never justify our behavior. In the same way that the school bully's existence isn't a good enough reason for you to become a bully, the fact that some animals farm, hunt, and eat other animals doesn't mean we should. It really is a bit like the old saying, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?" It doesn't matter what other people or animals do. What matters is you. your behaviors, and your conscience.
  
  Unless there is no non-animal food source available, we are not justified in eating them.
  
  - ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 8:59AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- reciprocating rights
  
  You said, ". I have no expectation of a chicken reciprocating rights"
  But in fact, a chicken would NEVER eat you. Never.
  
  We're not talking about granting complete human rights to animals. We're talking about whether or not you should eat meat.
  
  - ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 9:02AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Which organisms have rights?

Plants, Trees and Mushrooms are organisms with some semblance of intelligence and more notably, survival instincts, meaning, they don't want to die. where do we lay the line?
The question comes down to morals, either you have them from G-D, or you don't believe in G-D and you make your own morals, then you are free to decide on your own if it is moral to eat animals, but you cant decide morals for someone else.

- berelv July 25, 2008 11:45AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Sad state of education in this country
  
  Wow. I'm continually stunned by how few people in our supposedly civilized society still fail to grasp basic biology.
  
  I repeat, Plants, Trees and Mushrooms have NO CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, no pain receptors, and they do not have "survival instincts" at least not in the way that animals do. If I take a knife and stab a pig with it, the pig screams. If I take the knife and stab a piece of broccoli, what does the broccoli do? Scream? Run away? Why not? Certainly if it had "survival instincts" it would try and retreat somehow from my wielding the knife.
  
  I am convinced that those who make this argument are doing so because they really have nothing to go on in favor of the "yes" side and are just grasping at straws.
  
  - kelley August 14, 2008 7:23PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - yes and no
    
    I both agree and disagree with you.
    
    There is a legitimate question hidden in the original comments oversimplification. Life is a continuous chain without clear and distinct lines separating "types" of creatures. It's easy to see lines when we look at creatures that are far apart (mammals and insects) but not so clear as we move sequentially along the continuum.
    
    If I stab a shrimp it will not scream. Is it Ok to eat shrimp? If I try to kill the a spider in my house it will run away. Should I never kill insects? What about termites that get into the walls of my house?
    
    - reckoner August 15, 2008 10:47AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - "survival instincts"
    
    Plants most certainly have survival instincts, you're just going about it from a different perspective. An overwhelming number of plants contain toxins, poisons, barbs, hooks, and bright colors designed to deter animals from eating them. And yes, some of them even react physically in real time by curling up - retreating if you will to the extent that they are capable of - to the presence of something that may or may not eat them.
    
    At the end of the day you're still extinguishing life, one way or another, regardless of what you eat. Even plants don't want to die.
    
    - Schmevbo August 20, 2008 12:59PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Something to chew on
      
      http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm
      
      Click on "Insects and Plants". Then feel free to branch out from there. I really enjoyed many of these arguments. If you don't find them satisfactory, then I recommend picking those points out for discussion.
      
      Find me incontrovertible data that I must eat animal products to live, and it becomes morally justifiable. But we must eat plants. And we have no strong evidence of any plant-based sentience. We have undeniable data supporting sentience in the animals we torture and kill. Not being sure about the sentience of one should never justify infringing on the rights of clearly sentient beings.
      
      It would be beneficial to try and support your statement: "Even plants don't want to die" Unless you mean that since plants do not "want" they cannot "want" to die, I don't understand what you mean.
      
      - mike August 20, 2008 7:45PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - supportin'
        
        What I mean is: Plants have, in many cases, a highly developed set of defense mechanisms that would otherwise confer their survival in the face of something that would eat them. I'm just being cheeky and assigning the words "Don't want to die" to such mechanisms because they sort of fit the description of well, not wanting to die. Obviously plants don't fit our definition of intelligent, sentient, all of the words people are using to support reasons for not eating meat, all I'm trying to say is that as a human consumer of the things around us you have to kill to survive.
        
        - Schmevbo August 21, 2008 8:32AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Cheeky, eh? :-)
        
        Yes. In as much as we do not generate energy through the process of photosynthesis, we must gather our energy from consuming things that do. So life must end in order that our lives continue.
        
        But if you had a choice between ripping a fruit from a vine and slitting the throat of a baby cow, I have a feeling I know which choice you'd make. We have no evidence that the vine is feeling pain, and we have a fair amount of science suggesting that it doesn't. We do not have any doubt about whether or not that baby cow would suffer from such an event, though. We go with what we know and give the benefit of the doubt where ever we can.
        
        Remember, that in order to sustain animals for human consumption, you must kill WAY more plants, so even if they find that plants are sentient, the net suffering would still be less if we went with a plant-based diet.
        
        - mike August 21, 2008 9:39AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Agreed,
        
        discounting any notion of plant sentience or pain sensation, the astronomical amount of land and plant mass necessary to sustain the cattle industry alone is hopelessly ludicrous.
        
        - Schmevbo August 25, 2008 11:48AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        "Net Suffering"
        
        In my comment I was only questioning where the line is, and who sets it. Who can define life as: sentient, pain feeling, defensible or any other qualification.
        Humans are far more in tune to what human life is similar to but its harder to understand life the more different it is from us.
        To decide that life is only sentient life, then should a person in a vegetative state not have right to live? that will probably be the opinion of those who decide for themselves what life is, but people who take their view on life from G-D will usually think that it is ok to eat meat but not ok to kill humans.
        
        - berelv August 25, 2008 6:26PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
- What about the plants!?!?!?!!!!???11
  
  http://www.vegansoapbox.com/4-questions-to-vegans /
  http://www.vegansoapbox.com/a-comment-on-the-plant-problem /
  http://www.vegansoapbox.com/where-do-you-draw-the-line-insects-plants-bacteria /
  
  - ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 9:04AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- those which suffer
  
  You can decide morals for someone else when what they want to do will create suffering.
  
  So: which organisms have rights?
  
  Those which experience pain and suffering, which turns out to be vertebrates. It's our duty to minimize suffering in these animals in a similar manner to our imperative to minimize suffering in humans.
  
  - advance June 12, 2009 4:33PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not to eat them, but a different argument

Peta should change their argument.
I agree, humans are omnivores. It is not the death of animals that is wrong, but the way we obtain the meat, the way we treat the animals in their whole lives. It is the way that we treat them that hurts them the most. In nature, omnivores do hunt other animals. The animals we eat are also omnivores, for some. We love them, but they kill for the same reason as us, don't they?
The only difference between humans being omnivores and other animals being omnivores or carnivores is that humans breed the animals that we eat and we treat them horribly, which is unacceptable in the animal kingdom.
Personally, I do not want to eat meat because I have the same arguments as Peta. The animals feel the pain. But for other humans, My argument would not be the sympathy for animals, but the injustice towards them.

- Rainie August 10, 2008 7:33PM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- 'Happy meat'
  
  I'm amazed at what you're saying, basically that animals are a commodity!!! "It is not the death of animals that is wrong, but the way we obtain the meat..."
  
  Animals are individuals, as we are individuals.... Just because an animal has run around, grazed & lived a descent life, why does that now mean that their flesh is what's important & the animal life means nothing???!
  
  - veganpanda August 14, 2008 8:50AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - where do you draw the line?
    
    Is it ok to kill insects? Bacteria? Viruses?
    
    Where do you draw the line and why?
    
    - reckoner August 15, 2008 10:07AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - You respect all life
      
      I wish more people would just read a book or two about speciesism, it would make things much easier.
      You do not kill life unless you need to for survival. Very simple. Bugs are just as cool as you are, retards are just as cool as you are, so are babies. I'm not going into the bacteria just now cause its a complex issue which human animals should explore and research on there own.
      
      Just don't act like a speciesist and we will be ok.
      
      - M3house August 15, 2008 12:52PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - i've read many books
        
        I'm not sure how reading books will make this an easier issue. If there is a hornets nest above my door should I not kill them? Hornets stinging me are not a risk to my survival, but it sure wouldn't be pleasant. What about termites eating away at my house? I have enough money to let them destroy my home and rebuild so they aren't a threat to my survival, but I'd rather not sit around and wait for them to destroy my home.
        
        - reckoner August 15, 2008 2:45PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Where to draw the line
      
      Sentience is the place to draw the line. Sentience is perceptual awareness; it is the ability to suffer; it is having some sort of cognitive apparatus that has an interest (preference, desire, want) in not suffering and in continued life. Whether insects or all insects have that characteristic is something that I do not know. Plants do not have that characteristic. All nonhumans we routinely exploit without dispute do have that characteristic.
      
      If a being is not sentient, the being has no interests. That is, there is nothing that the being desires, wants or prefers. If a being does not have any interests, then nothing we do to that being constitutes a harm.
      
      - Gary L Francione August 17, 2008 5:58AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - a blurry line or a distinct one?
        
        I think there are two important points to make.
        
        1. life is a continuous chain.
        I believe you mentioned evolution in one of your arguments. If we accept evolution as truth then we agree that all life stems from the same source and every living thing is the result of small iterative changes over a very long period of time. Any point we draw along that line as a definition of "sentience" is inherently arbitrary because the organism immediately to the left of the line is virtually indistinguishable from the organism directly to the right. Therefore sentience is a matter of degree.
        
        2. Sentience is both a matter of degree and a difference of kind. Plants are different than animals, but things get blurry at a certain level.
        
        My conclusion, there is not a moral equivalence between humans and chickens AND chickens are sentient and should be treated as such.
        
        - reckoner August 17, 2008 4:57PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Point 1
        
        Assumption: Sentience exists and the human species is sentient
        Assumption: Sentience is either on or off (there is no partial sentience) and once on remains so
        Assumption: Physical matter (atoms and sub-structures) does not have sentience
        Thus: At some point on a "continuous chain" the combined physical matter gained sentience. At any point prior to that, however small the distance in the chain, sentience did not exist. Different chains may or may not gain sentience. There is nothing inconclusive (with perfect knowledge) about when sentience was enabled and the concept of same source is irrelevant since there can be more than one chain - either branching like a tree (the same source mutating twice) or via separate initial physical combinations. Consider if sentient life does indeed exist in another part of the universe it likely does not share the same (actual) source as humans.
        
        - polobo August 31, 2008 11:41PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        the point is arbitrary
        
        the point you pick is inherently arbitrary. More importantly, the life form at the point is virtually indistinguishable from the life form immediately prior to your sentience cut off. To claim that one is a full rights holder and the other is not is transparently flawed.
        
        - reckoner September 1, 2008 2:43PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Just be agnostic about it and move on
        
        Since we cannot know conclusively who (or what) feels pain and experiences life in a way similar to the human experience (or conclusively know many other things), it makes the most sense to be agnostic on the issue.
        
        So that takes care of the metaphysics (what is and what isn't - existence). Onto the ethics: We ought to act in a manner that results in the least harm to others. Can we all agree on that ethical principle? (I certainly hope so.)
        
        Since we know humans can live perfectly fine, healthy lives as vegetarians and vegans, then abstaining from meat consumption is not a significant sacrifice to make in order to prevent potential serious harm to animals, as well as the environment and thus future humans.
        
        Since we know humans cannot live perfectly healthy lives without consuming plants, bacteria, etc, then abstaining from consuming those items IS a significant sacrifice. The sacrifice is so significant that it likely contradicts with our main principle and/or other ethical principles.
        
        - ElaineVigneault September 16, 2008 11:47AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
      - Not sure about what sentience is
        
        I am not at all sure plants are not sentient according to the above definition. I think it is hasty to suggest we have a definition for what sentience is, given we have no definition yet for what consciousnes is.
        
        - sor666 September 2, 2009 9:55PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Line?
      
      If you did not, what's the difference between killing a human and an animal? A bacteria? Viruses? Are you saying there should be no line? Why?
      
      - Rainie August 21, 2008 2:23AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Drawing the line
      
      If you don’t need to kill or harm another sentient being, then you shouldn’t kill or harm another sentient being.
      
      1. I don’t have to eat animals to survive
      2. I have to eat plants to survive
      
      http://www.vegansoapbox.com/where-do-you-draw-the-line-insects-plants-bacteria /
      
      - ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 9:07AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Reply to veganpanda
    
    I think you got me wrong. Animal life does mean a lot to me. However, we are born to eat animals. I am against eating meat, but I cannot stop others from eating meat, can I? I can't even stop my own family.
    Eating meat, to vegans and vegetarians may be just like committing a crime. To other humans, it is nature. It IS nature. If you studied science you should have learnt about adaptations, and the different teeth structures. I am currently 12 years-old only and I am studying adaptations. I have studied my own teeth structure, and I cannot deny that humans were born to eat meat.
    I respect other animals' diets too. I have to. I can't stop them from preying other animals, but what is wrong with our eating meat is because it is not a natural process for us anymore! It is like mass production, which will never occur in the wild.
    Animals mean a lot to me. I will never bear to kill an animal, but when it's coming to respect, I respect all life, as well as respect all races and religions.
    
    - Rainie August 21, 2008 2:38AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Some reading up
      
      If your teachers are teaching you that canine teeth are for ripping into raw muscle tissue, then they are grossly misinformed. Search around a bit. You'll find the right answers. Remember, teachers can be wrong. Also, check this site out: http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm
      
      Click on Arguments From Biology. Ask questions if you don't understand something there. You DO have the right to inform people of the truth. You DO have the right to express your concern when people are doing things that violate the rights of others. There are many things that are a part of human nature that we suppress because our morality has risen above basic biological urges.
      
      You'd never look at a guy beating a black man and say that the guy is simply of a different belief system. You'd run home and tell someone, because you know it's wrong. There's a chance that the guy genuinely doesn't think he's wrong. But just because he doesn't think it's wrong doesn't make it right, does it?
      
      - mike August 21, 2008 9:30AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PeTA are hypocites!

Of course animals are sentient, it goes without saying... So why do PeTA have an anti pitbull policy?
Pitbull dogs are sentient creatures who are dreadfully abused by evil humans & PeTA add to that by calling for them to be destroyed as 'dangerous dogs'.

Also PeTA's hypocrisy goes further than that, they kill over 90% of the animals (mainly dogs & cats) that they 'rescue' which lets down ALL animals and makes our arguments for Animal Rights seem much weaker!!!

- veganpanda August 14, 2008 8:40AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So what?

I do not see the point of assuming that animals have feelings, awareness and preference...So what if they do? First of all everything that you have just described are assumptions. We do not know for sure about the mental abilities of animals. Even if it was true that they had feelings, it is not like they do not eat each other in the animal kingdom. It is all very simple. We eat animals not for the joy of killing them, but for the simple fact that we need to eat in order to survive.

- Miga August 28, 2008 7:39AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Please refrain from statements like this
  
  Even the most cursory research would reveal that there is no need to consume animals or their bi-products in order to survive.
  
  A debate is best had by becoming informed on the topic before making false statements as though they are fact. The internet has enough such ignorant statements as it is.
  
  - mike August 28, 2008 6:58PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Hmm....
    
    If you really wanted to challenge my intelligence...at least spell your words right. Please. I am not saying there are no other source of nutrition other than animals, but I enjoy eating meat. Why should I restrict my preference when we are not running out of supply?
    
    - Miga September 1, 2008 3:50PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Because...
      
      ...you're violating someone's interests by doing so.
      
      Sure, there are enough women in the world, but that doesn't mean that men can go around killing women since "we are not running out of supply".
      
      Rapists enjoy raping women. It is their preference to do so.
      But, the fact that their preference involves violating or ignoring someone else's, makes their "choice" immoral. When our actions affect others, they cannot be labeled simply as a personal opinion or choice.
      
      I'm not saying that you're a rapist. I'm just arguing that pleasure or preference cannot be a moral justification, and this is because someone else's interests are at stake. It's the same when it comes to eating other animals' flesh or bodily secretions.
      
      Other animals are not "supply". They are "somebody".
      
      - Liberacion Igualdad September 1, 2008 4:53PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Not your intelligence...your ignorance.
      
      I'm not calling into question your capacity for knowledge. I'm simply saying that you've done very little research in coming into this debate. Those points you made have been refuted time and time again. I suppose the statement "we need to eat in order to survive" IS, in fact, a simple fact, but how on Earth are you using it here to justify enslaving and killing animals? You admit that you don't NEED to eat animals, yet you follow up by supporting your argument with the fact that carnivores kill other animals? Again, this supports nothing.
      
      Coma victims may or may not feel pain, and I enjoy stabbing them. There are clearly enough that I'd hardly make a dent in the population as even the most diligent of people-stabbers. So, by your argument, I should be able to stab? 1) brings me pleasure 2) who cares if they feel 3) near-limitless supply
      
      So as to avoid redundancy, read the arguments on this site http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm and then start from a point where you either address the rebuttals given there, or you find something that hasn't been addressed ad nauseum.
      
      - mike September 1, 2008 5:14PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- The point is, Miga, ...
  
  ...that other animals, just like human animals, have some relevant basic interests, such as an interest in not suffering, in experiencing pleasure, in continuing to exist and in liberty, among others.
  
  We protect those interests when it comes to humans, but ignore or violate the same interests when it comes to other animals. Why? Just because we say so, or just because they are not of "our own". Same argument a white-supremacist might raise.
  
  If you say these are just "assumptions", then you must agree that saying that other humans "have feelings, awareness and preference" are just assumptions also, because we do not (and cannot) know FOR SURE what the mental abilities of other humans are (if there are any).
  
  But, we have several ways of reasonably concluding that other animals (humans or not) are sentient, thus, have awareness, preferences, etc.
  
  Whether other animals kill each other or not, says nothing about the morality of HUMANS killing other animals, just as the fact that other animals kill other animals' offspring to reproduce with the mother doesn't mean that it is OK for humans to kill other humans' offspring in order to reproduce with the mother.
  
  You might not eat other animals for the joy of killing them, but you surely eat other animals and their secretions for the joy of eating what's left of their exploitation and killing, which amounts to the same. Them being exploited and killed.
  
  We don't eat them for survival. We eat them for pleasure.
  
  - Liberacion Igualdad September 1, 2008 2:03PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Uh-oh
    
    Now you know this is where I've been hiding! Don't tell the others! Or do, in fact. This is a great place to practice understanding and articulating one's beliefs and the logic that backs them.
    
    For how ridiculous the vast majority of "Yes Side" arguments have been (mostly from the "experts" and those who are merely echoing them), there actually are some challenging individuals around here.
    
    This is where I'm vacationing while my true home is undergoing some much-needed renovations. :-)
    
    - mike September 1, 2008 2:19PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - You are right.
    
    We eat animals for pleasure but at the same time this fulfills our need for amino acids, iron and such. We do exploit animals and we have been doing this for a long time. It was not considered immoral in any way in the past. Why did we all of a sudden think it was immoral? What changed? Did we simply run out of conflicts, that we are seeking for something to argue over?
    
    - Miga September 1, 2008 3:57PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Not considered immoral in the past...
      
      Hi, Miga. Glad to read from you.
      
      Yes, we can get aminoacids, iron and proteins from animal sources. But also from vegetable sources. We have that choice.
      
      Human slavery wasn't considered immoral in the past. Men domination over women wasn't considered immoral in the past. Many things we consider immoral today, weren't considered immoral in the past. Most of them were done for a long, long time too.
      
      Do you think that the people opposing human slavery were just lazy folks that were seeking for something to argue over? That they had run out of conflicts?
      
      I think that position it's way too simplistic, if not offensive for those struggling for justice, and specially for the victims of unjust practices.
      
      What changed? The way we look and think about things. The fact that we are reconsidering our indoctrinated morals and traditions. We are thinking critically about them, and recognizing that they might be wrong, even if they are ancient or part of our culture.
      
      Other animals, like humans, have an interest in continuing to exist, in liberty, in avoid suffering. We must apply the principle of equal consideration of interests, and conclude that similar interests must be protected equally.
      
      If we think enslaving, exploiting and killing humans violate their most basic interests, and, therefore, think it's immoral to impose that on unconsenting humans, we must apply the same to other animals that have the SAME basic interests.
      
      Plus, I have the feeling that you think it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on other animals. As Gary Francione has already argued, this is a widely accepted notion by most humans.
      
      The problem is that all of our uses of other animals, and the infliction of pain, suffering and death related, cannot be labeled as "necessary" in any reasonable way. Starting with our diet.
      
      If you think that the pleasure you get out of eating other animals' flesh, eggs or milk, it's enough to justify their suffering, pain and death, then you might think that it's ok to, say, torture a dog because we "like" to do so, or get pleasure out of it.
      
      I assume you wouldn't agree with the latter. But then again, what's the difference between the dog-torturer and those that eat animal products? Both of them do it just because they like it, both of them violate someone's interests, and both of them can get pleasure otherwise. So it cannot be considered necessary at all.
      
      There's a huge contradiction between what we say and what we do.
      
      I'm really sorry that you think this issue it's unimportant. For all I know, this issue it's of the MOST importance for all those animals suffering and dying for our selfish and superficial choices.
      
      Best,
      
      Samuel.
      
      - Liberacion Igualdad September 1, 2008 4:46PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Ok
        
        I see your point and I agree with most of it. I think it is wrong to torture animals strictly for pleasure and I also think that the way we slaughter animals is cruel and unnecessary. We, humans, are the top of the food chain and having accomplished that we have power over most animals. However, this does not grant us the power to kill animals in a gruesome manner. I am not convinced that animals have the capacity of a humans and therefore I do not agree that they act in a human manner. This may sound too simple but we are superior to animals and they can not attack us back so we get to eat them.
        
        - Miga September 1, 2008 8:34PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        I'm glad...
        
        Thanks for being open-minded. This seems to be a very rare characteristic these days.
        
        So, I was right about my assumption regarding your already held beliefs, primarily, that it is wrong to impose unnecessary suffering and death on other animals.
        By your assumption alone, the only reasonable answer, and the one that would truly align with your stated belief, is Veganism.
        
        Eating animal products is unnecessary, involves a huge amount of pain, suffering and death, and can only be justified by "pleasure" or "habit".
        
        Now I encourage you to think about your claims that "the way we slaughter animals" is the problem.
        Fact is, sentient animals do not only care about "suffering". They have an interest in their lives, freedom, positive experiences such as pleasure, etc.
        
        So, regardless of the "way" we slaughter, enslave and/or exploit other animals, we are, without a doubt, violating their most basic interests, without necessity.
        Whether we do it "kindly" or not, is a separate issue, and doesn't say anything about the morality of enslaving and exploiting them.
        
        I have not argued that other animals have the same capacities as human animals, nor that they act in a "human manner".
        I have only argued that, because we are sentient, we do share the same basic interests, which must protected equally in order to be morally consistent.
        
        Sure, as Gary Francione usually argues, a dog may not have an interest in getting a college education, just as a retarded human don't have that same interest.
        But this doesn't say anything about the morality of enslaving, exploiting and killing the dog or the severely retarded human. Why? Because the interest in having a college-education isn't relevant to the issue.
        What's relevant is that the dog, just as the retarded human, have an interest in not suffering, in their liberty and in continuing to exist.
        That's all that matters in that case.
        
        The "top of the food chain" statement isn't really accurate. There is no such thing as a "pyramidal" state of affairs in nature. We're all interconnected and dependent on each other. The "top of the food chain" bit, it's just another lie created to make humans fool themselves into thinking that the oppression they impose on other animals comes from some self-claimed "superiority" or "natural order".
        
        We are NOT "superior" to animals, first, because WE ARE animals, and second, because any claim of "human superiority" is usually framed into some specific characteristic. In this sense, humans might be "superior" to other animals in some respects, but "inferior" in others.
        But the truth is, "human superiority" is yet another lie, probably sharing the same root as the "top of the food chain" one, with some religious/supernatural superstition involved.
        
        Now, we might have the "power" to exploit and kill other animals (especially those that can hardly pose a threat to a human - mostly passive herbivores, not surprisingly, the ones we kill and eat the most). But might doesn't make it right. As Gary also argued, I might have the power to exploit and kill "weaker" humans, but that doesn't mean it is morally justifiable to do so, let alone an obligation for me to do so.
        
        I tend to think that those "weaker" humans should be protected even more, NOT exploited because of their weakness.
        In the case of other animals, it isn't even a matter of "protecting" them, but simply of letting them live their own lives. That's what Veganism and Animal Rights is all about.
        
        When you think about it, you can conclude that it's not that much to ask, is it?
        
        Kind regards.
        
        - Liberacion Igualdad September 2, 2008 12:01AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        OK for you
        
        I believe that eating animals is natural. Suffering is part of life for both humans and animals. It is naive to think otherwise. Your Utopian vision simply doesn't fly in the face of reality. Animals should be treated humanely as possible I agree but that includes killing animals for food as humanely as possible. If an animal kills a human well so be it, it's natural. If we kill an animal for food it's also natural. If you want to live a Vegan lifestyle so be it but so many of you PETA/Vegan types have such an air of moral superiority it makes me sick. Don't tell me what to eat and I won't tell you what to eat. How do you know those plants you eat don't have feelings?
        
        "In the case of other animals, it isn't even a matter of "protecting" them, but simply of letting them live their own lives. That's what Veganism and Animal Rights is all about."
        
        Does that include carnivorous animals letting their prey "live their own lives"? On the one hand you say humans aren't superior yet on the other hand you tolerate a pride of lions tearing a live wildebeest to shreds. Seems like a double standard to me.
        
        - tbcass December 18, 2008 5:13AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Superior?
        
        We're finally at the root of the problem. Speciesism can be defined as a paradigm in which individuals in a position of power withholds the rights of other individuals arbitrarily on the basis of their species.
        
        You are a speciesist. Don't be immediately offended. We've all been raised that way. It's not too hard to depart from this so long as you continue the debate to truly try and define what makes us "superior". You'll be at a loss if you truly work at it. Are we more superior than orcas, who can live adeptly under water? How about arthropods who have conquered land, air, and sea, have survived us by millions of years, and it is estimated that they will be here long after we're gone? Are we more superior than they? Birds, perhaps? Cows have the ability to completely break down and digest cellulose. That's impressive for even herbivores!
        
        Need other beings have the capacity of humans? Complex language? Well, we're not sure which species have this, but we do know they can't speak English (though a couple have learned to understand it). Is it the ability to reason? Clearly not even all members of our own species have this. Mathematics? Philosophy? Technology?
        
        Humans are not very superior, at all. We can't take large fluctuations of temperature. We cannot hold our breath very long. Our soft flesh is penetrable to even the weakest of claws or fangs. We can't run very fast or far. We must constantly eat and drink. Even our young need to be tended to for years before they are capable individuals. I would argue that humans are SO unable to adapt physiologically, because the trait we developed is intellect. Some animals got gills, some wings, some incredible speed. We got bigger brains. Everyone got something. Superior? Hardly. Just different.
        
        - mike September 2, 2008 6:25AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        The Wrong Term?
        
        It would appear, mike, that you are attempting to equate physical capabilities - wings, enzyme production, natural defenses - with intellectual capabilities. I'm afraid that I don't buy that as a legitimate argument. To the contrary - it is because of man's ability to reason that we have created for ourselves the ability to fly better and faster than a bird, run further and faster than a cheetah, and continue breathing underwater just as well as a fish. It baffles me how any of the examples that you've given don't go to prove the actual superiority of the human animal.
        
        More importantly, I don't think we've accurately understood where rights derive from. This entire debate seems to be predicated on the presumption that all entities must be afforded basic rights unless significant reason can be provided to deny them. That's simply backwards thinking. It's a fairly simple task to indicate that humans must have rights because of their nature as rational animals, and if you can establish that other animals meet the same criteria, I'll be happy to afford them whatever rights they're equipped to handle (I doubt, for instance, that even if you could prove a gorilla to be a rational creature that you could prove that it possesses the judgment and capacity to vote in an election). Unfortunately, I've yet to see a persuasive argument toward that point.
        
        That being the case, it seems that the entire notion of speciesism is wrongheaded. I personally believe the human animal to be superior to other animals, but it truthfully doesn't enter the analysis when determining whether or not I have the right to own, kill, or eat an animal. The only important issue is whether or not the animal can be demonstrated to have rights as a result of its own nature.
        
        - Brian Seiler September 2, 2008 12:45PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Flawed reasoning
        
        Every animal adapts the best they can. Lions use strength, teeth and claws. Antelopes use speed. Man uses intellect which has allowed us to adapt to a far wider range of conditions than any other animal, which have rendered fur, claws, fangs etc unnecessary. It's just another adaptive strategy that has proved very successful. From an adaptive POV man is superior like it or not. In nature the ability to survive and adapt to a wide range of conditions is what makes one species superior to another.
        
        - tbcass December 18, 2008 5:22AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
    - Nothing changed - animal rights has a long history
      
      You said, "It was not considered immoral in any way in the past."
      In fact, there's a long history of eating meat being considered immoral. Take a look at the book The Longest Struggle: http://www.lanternbooks.com/detail.html?id=9781590561065
      
      - ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 9:16AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Regarding animal pain
  
  You said, "We do not know for sure about the mental abilities of animals."
  In fact, you don't know for sure about the mental abilities of other humans. You can't get into other people's heads. What if it's all just a dream or an illusion and none of it is real? What if the Matrix is the truth...?
  
  We have good reason to believe animals feel pain. This isn't a fantasy-land where scientists' conclusions that animals are sentient doesn't matter. This is real life and the scientific consensus is that animals definitely feel pain.
  
  - ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 9:13AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Correction
    
    Elaine,
    
    Unfortunately, I'm afraid that we DO know that other humans possess a certain intellectual capability. Specifically, we know that because we each know that we are humans, we have no persuasive reason to believe that we are unique in our intellectual capacity, and other humans outwardly display this capacity.
    
    I would further object to your assertion that animals can feel "pain" - specifically, you are effectively equating the human understanding of pain and suffering to animal pain, which unfortunately requires presentation of more specific evidence. Beyond that, you seem to be presuming that the fact that an entity can perceive pain - by whatever definition you've presumed - implies the existence of rights. It would be helpful if you could elucidate the argument that leads you to believe this to be true.
    
    - Brian Seiler September 11, 2008 2:31PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Knowledge and Intelligence...
      
      Yousaid: "we DO know that other humans possess a certain intellectual capability. Specifically, we know that because we each know that we are humans, we have no persuasive reason to believe that we are unique in our intellectual capacity, and other humans outwardly display this capacity."
      
      The exact same it true of animals. We have no persuasive reason to believe that we are unique in our intellectual capacity, and other ANIMALS outwardly display this capacity.
      Please read this National Geographic article for information about animal intelligence:
      http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text
      
      - ElaineVigneault September 11, 2008 4:12PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - No Offense to National Geographic.....
        
        ....but that article is not so impressive. Specifically, the details of the experiment are a little sketchy so far as I can tell, and it's difficult to determine to what extent the scientist conducting the activity could be shaping the results, however inadvertently. Further, even if we assume that the study establishes that parrots are capable of complex thought of any kind, that knowledge would not be very easily portable to, for example, cows. The analogy gets even shakier when we start talking about sponges and anemones. Assuming that another human understands and interacts with the world the same way that I do is much less of a stretch than assuming that the same is true for me and my pet dog, who, to every examination I can make, seems to forget that I continue to exist at all if I leave his sensory range. Another good example (relayed by Connie Willis, who is probably embellishing, but I like it for effect) would be sheep, who, by some anecdotal reports, are not only so stupid that they can walk into a corner in a completely open pen and forget how to back out, but will also eat all of the grass available to them in their pen, after which they will proceed to eat the dirt.
        
        - Brian Seiler September 11, 2008 7:52PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Animals feel pain, whether you believe it or not
        
        The article was about multiple experiments, not just one. Perhaps you only read the first few pages?
        
        Here's more:
        http://www.animalintelligence.org /
        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070222-chimps-spears.html
        http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind /
        http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/08-exactly-how-smart-is-mans-best-friend
        http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/primate-IQ-hierarchy
        http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5598/1634
        http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jan/dog-outsmarts
        http://discovermagazine.com/2004/mar/monkeys-know-what-they-know
        http://discovermagazine.com/2003/oct/feateye
        
        But the point isn't how smart they are. The point is that they feel pain.
        
        - ElaineVigneault September 12, 2008 9:44AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Part of life
        
        I agree that animals have feelings. Unfortunately pain is part of life both human and animal. Humans are sometimes attacked and killed by wild animals. Diseases can cause prolonged pain and suffering before death. A pride of lions attacking and killing their prey is horribly cruel. Methods that we use to slaughter domestic animals is much more humane than that. If you don't want to eat meat for personal reasons I'm fine with that but don't tell me not to.
        
        - tbcass December 18, 2008 4:57AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        I can't believe that animals' ability to feel pain is an issue
        
        All you have to do is pinch a dog or cat to know that they felt it and disliked it or watch Animal Plant Emergency Vets and see an animal cry out in pain after being hit by a car or mauled by a wild animal or dog. Any person who has ever trimmed their cat, dog, rabbit, ferret, etc 's nails knows that if you cut the quick (the vein), then the animal will bleed and yelp.
        
        Anyone who's ever been near a dog that was abused and beaten know that all they have to do is raise their voice and lift their hand to make the dog cower in fear.
        
        Animals CAN feel pain and can REMEMBER it.
        
        Of all the facets of this argument, animals ' ability to feel pain has got to be the dumbest.
        
        - gatorgirl7563 July 20, 2009 10:24AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But...

They don't pay taxes.
They can't vote.
They don't pay rent.
They don't flush the toilet (or use it for that matter...usually).
They haven't formed a union.
They cannot operate machinery or fire a weapon
--- those that can we either treat really well or run away from

- polobo September 2, 2008 8:31PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- toilets
  
  Cat uses the toilet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ug7WEUxH68
  Cat flushes the toilet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WofFb_eOxxA
  
  Care to revise your statement?
  ;)
  
  - ElaineVigneault September 11, 2008 4:14PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I hate other's views being shoved down my throat

PETA has a personal agenda and want to force their views on those that oppose them through any means necessary. Unfortunately we are animals and must eat to survive. Early man killed their prey through the most inhumane methods possible. When a Lion kills it's prey do they care about the "feelings" of that animal? Our methods today are a lot more humane than what happens in the wild. I believe in treating animals as humanely as possible and killing them as humanely as possible. I observed a Steer being slaughtered in a Meat Packing plant once. The animal was totally calm and without any observable stress until it was instantly knocked out. How can you be sure that plants are without feelings? There are some who believe they do. What would you do if it was proved that plants have emotions, starve? I have always eaten meat and will continue to do so as it is the natural thing to do. PETA makes me want to eat even more of it just for spite. If they wanted to be useful they should devote all their time to ensuring that animals are treated humanely while alive, not trying to prevent men from killing them for food.

- tbcass December 18, 2008 4:40AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sure they do

So must lions stop eating deer then? There is a reason why meat eating must be reduced, and that has nothing to do with animals having feelings. The real reason should be a concern for the environment. Large scale animal farming is the problem, not an individual hunting/raising animals for food. Homo Sapiens is designed to be a meat eater. Just look at the acidity levels in our stomachs and the sharp canines we have. We need the protein.

So if PETA wants to make a change in the world, it must stop hounding individuals and go after large scale animal farming and its harmful effects of the environment. Surely nature did not design for that. But it did design us to hunt, fish and eat protein. A "food chain" in case you didnt realize it, essentially involves species eating species without concern for feelings. The key, I think is in doing this without upsetting the balance of nature, and a million cattle mega ranch does exactly that.

- krishashok December 25, 2008 9:11PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Plants Feel

Scientific studies show that plants react to different stimulates of pain. Plants are not mindless creatures that are willing to die to satisfy out diet. Plants are not the alternative to eating meats. When talking about this subject one cannot pull out the guilt card, each candidates feel pain. Neither one wants or should be eaten. However, in order for our survival we must feed. We should not be fighting about the pain in which side feels but in the amount of nutritian we get out from eating plants or animals. As humans, we have the only concious choice in choosing what is right. But limiting us the right to eat meat is unnesesary. Animals were not put on this earth to be let go and over populate. As the dominate species we have the right to decide to eat meat.

- Dying Utopia January 12, 2009 11:36AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- I agree on what is sustainable
  
  It's not just the population but where you live. Since the world has constantly changing seasons we have a warm one when veggies and fruit can be grown and a cold one when they can't. A lot of places in the world don't have conditions to grow their own. With the population of the world their is not enough room to grow enough to provide for all the worlds people without more deforestation in a effort to do so. This would indanger more species of wildlife than are already in trouble. Even animals like the New Calidonian Giant Gecko eat fruit in the season it is plentiful while eating rodents and such when it is not around.
  While it has been proven most pigs can become wild and take on the look and traits of true wild ones they would be competing for our crops with us. Man would be killing them one way or another. Other animals that we have basically created would ruin our ecosystems should they be set free never to be eatin' only later to wipe out entire wild species that never had to contend with them before. To fight for the dignified treatment of animals is truely noble. To outlaw their consumption would either ultimately mean their genocide or the natural world as we know it.
  While I eat very little meat myself it leaves me with one question. Do animal rights activists grasp the logic of conservation?
  
  - Mcdowelli76 May 30, 2009 12:20AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Plants feel part 2
  
  On mythbusters they put plants in different greenhouses. The played variuos music and used different voices to see if the growth of the veggies was effected. It was, plants do get stressed when yelled at and it does affect their growth.Plants do die and do show ability to feel pain, but since thet have no voices they are not as noticed as say a cow, sheep, or pig. Listen to cries of the carrotts by Tool.
  
  - Mcdowelli76 May 30, 2009 12:27AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Related Debates

Experts on "Yes" Side

Reason Foundation
Free Minds and Free Markets See arguments
Consumer Freedom
Promoting Personal Responsibility See arguments

Experts on "No" Side

PETA
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals See arguments
Gary L Francione
Rutgers University School of Law See arguments

Most Objections