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?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Agreed that those who believe 'meat is murder' and that any murder is too much murder will in no way be appeased with this argument. But there were a number of other arguments presented by PETA including the ones about the environment, world hunger and others that would also be resolved by a reduction (not cessation) of meat eating. Meat eating has been part of human cultures for thousands of years, but the industrialization of the process (killing) has turned it into something so brutal that few of its consumers would be able to stomach watching it let a lone participating. Boycotting or (more likely to have an effect) legislation requiring certain minimal standards (after all we do have cruelty to animal laws) would likely improve conditions and increase price decreasing consumption. Asking people to stop entirely to some people cancels traditions, alienates friends and family, forces people to change their identities. Transitioning from a society where meat is consumed 3 meals a day to once per week would accomplish most goals and focusing on improving standards might be an inroad to that process.
- GreenLove
September 3, 2008 1:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
Sure, a reduction of meat eating would achieve a good deal for the environment, global human hunger, and human health and welfare. But you said some interesting things about what's wrong with asking people to give up animal products entirely that I'd like to address. You mention tradition. Is tradition ever a justification for an otherwise unethical practice? Think of slavery or sexism, for instance.
I think I only alienate friends and family who have unacknowledged conflicting feelings about eating animal products. The people who are confident they're doing the right thing have no problem with me. Occasionally someone will be 'put off' by the inconvenience my presence brings to an occasion. Often, though, I can mitigate or remove the inconvenience and turn it into a positive experience for everyone. I am very grateful for the people who were unafraid to live their values and thereby introduce me to new and welcome ideas. Living my values brings me more intimacy than alienation.
If someone's identity is wrapped up in their beef burrito, then I think they have a serious problem.
- Sammy December 30, 2008 10:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
A reduction in consumption would be a full fix to the environmental problem and the world hunger problem. It would only partially appease those who consider meat to be murder. A tradition of slavery and a traditional turkey on Thanksgiving are really two very different things in my opinion. Those arguing for the environment and world hunger should be arguing for more efficient and sustainable land-use policies (which would result in less meat) not a ban on meat. Those bringing up the poor treatment of animals before they are slaughtered should be advocating improved standards for the treatment of those animals. Those who believe ethically that meat is murder should be advocating that no one eat meat. Lumping all these issues related to meat together prevents any action on any of them until there is a lot of support for a strict vegetarianism . Considering where we are and where we have been that support may never come.
- GreenLove December 31, 2008 6:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Ants. They do just as people do and herd aphids and other smaller insects. It's a fact that while they protect them from others just as a farmer protects his sheep or cattle from wolves and coyotes , they also use them the same way dairy cows are used for milk. Chimps have learned how to fasion spears to hunt other smaller primates. Food for thought and I was not supprised no-one mentioned this since while most AR activist are schooled in various subjects, I have not seen this one or other eco system facts stated. Or that all domestic animals are part of our society , not really any ecosystem outside of man. That topped by the fact that all plant life eating animals in this group would be competing for our own crops putting them in with coyotes,rats, mice, and all other creatures that eat our crops or herds. Their future still wouldn't be all sunshine.
- Mcdowelli76 May 31, 2009 6:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Ants do not have a developed nervous system. Neither do aphids. These creatures do not suffer when they are farmed.
Cows feel pain, anxiety, and fear. So do chickens, pigs, and other vertebrae. Especially in cramped and miserable conditions seemingly prevalent in mass produced meat factories and farms.
Farming is natural, yes. There is no doubt that it has emerged in other species. But if we are able to minimize the suffering of our animals , why wouldn't we do that?
- advance June 12, 2009 4:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
7
6
7
1
5
5
7
10
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Eating Happy Chickens Means More Happy Chickens
- From Reason Foundation
By Reason Foundation - Free Minds and Free Markets
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is a chicken happy when it's slaughtered?
Animals can feel. Getting closer to the process would give you a better understanding of that. Would you be able to kill and eat a chicken you raised from a chick? Would you be able to eat and kill your dog or cat?
- Santa Cruz Mom
July 13, 2008 5:51PM
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.
Jews For Vegans!
There were quite a few holocaust survivors who later compared the death camps in Germany to modern slaughterhouses. Many of them also became vegetarians after their experiences. The well known author Isaac Bashevas Singer once wrote "To animals, all men are like Nazis". I think the comparison here speaks for itself and is an ugly truth meat eaters will not want to admit.
- Phat P
August 6, 2008 1:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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 this isn't an argument at all?
This addition to the conversation seems to be a dispute with PETA's holocaust metaphor (without a rational justification for labeling this comparison "absurd" of course) wrapped up in a question of means: "People aren't going to go vegetarian all at once, so try another method." Okay. Those who believe that forcing an animal to suffer unnecessarily should take your suggestion and perhaps adapt our methods accordingly. But, what is your point as it relates to "Should we eat meat"? You still haven't presented a rational justification for doing so.
I might ask further, if you existed in a society where women were denigrated to the status of property, would you argue to those who seek to abolish this practice, "Listen, not everyone is going to allow women full rights anytime soon; therefore, let's try to make some women "happy property" for now. You're wasting your time otherwise."?
- Alex M
August 9, 2008 3:37PM
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.
irony award nominee
I'm guessing reason has never been to a industrial "free-range farm". The chickens are anything but happy.
"Rosie the organic chicken's life is little different from that of a conventional chicken. The organic chicken house held 20,000 birds. They get a few more square inches of living space and they get to live a few days longer. Though under the circumstances it's not clear that a longer life is necessarily a boon. Running along side was a grassy yard maybe 15 feet wide, not nearly big enough to accommodate all twenty thousand birds. The federal rules say an organic chicken should merely have "access to the outdoors". I waited by the chicken door to see if any of the birds would exercise that option and stroll down the little ramp to their grassy yard. Seldom if ever stepped upon, the chicken-house lawn is scrupulously maintained to honor an ideal nobody wants to admit has by now become something of a joke." paraphrasing michael pollan from an omnivore's dilemma.
- reckoner
August 13, 2008 9:56PM
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.
A good start
I agree with the author, going cage-free or free range is better than eating just any kind of meat. The organic industry needs to be a little more regulated for it to become a perfect world, but changing people's eating habits is more than half the battle.
And yes, I have raised chickens from chicks and I loved them as pets. When it came time to kill them, it was sad, but I can always rest easy knowing they lived long and happy lives.
I was brought up to respect all life, but to also understand we are all are part of the food chain, and we have every right to eat them.
- TwentySomethingAndSmiling
August 19, 2008 12:40PM
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.
Fraught with problems
Show me proof as to how cage-free or free range is better. Find evidence and not rhetoric, please, because I cannot. All of my research seems to suggest the opposite. Then let's consider the fact that you are not the only one who, without looking into it, has stated that it's "better". This is dangerous, because if we're convinced that it's "a good start" without seeking the truth, then we're just succumbing to more blind ignorance. People will feel as though the movement is out of their hands and someone else is making good progress for them so long as they keep buying meat, dairy, and eggs and simply decide to pay more for food labeled with euphemisms that absolve their guilt.
Also, can you please find me a scientific journal where the food chain is used as a justification for using animals to our own ends? I've never seen the "food chain" used by respected sources in this way. It's usually just a way to categorize species.
- mike
August 19, 2008 10:09PM
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.
What right?
Where do you get this "right"? Argue your point without these undefended assumptions.
If it’s unnecessary to force an animal to suffer, which it is in the case of consuming their body parts as even conservative dieticians argue, to what "right" can you appeal to justify continuing to do so. “Might makes right” perhaps? This principle has been shown to be morally bankrupt as it leads to unacceptable conclusions such as the Holocaust, for example. So again, what “right”?
- Alex M
August 21, 2008 2:14PM
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.
Cause and Effect
The Holocaust occurred, and was stopped, because our reality is one in which "might makes right". Whether it is "morally bankrupt" according to your values is irrelevant as such disagreement does nothing to disprove its existence. It is quite easy to apply ethics when the general populace of our world agrees since in those cases the "unethical" persons are quickly put down by the superior might commanded by the righteous. It may really appear that there is some absolute ethical code that exists; especially considering the role and characteristics of religion throughout human history - I believe there does not. This (religion) too, however, is a natural consequence of "might makes right" since a religious group is, abstractly, a social group whose members have pooled their might in order to try and make reality match their idea of right. Likewise, those same members have a tendency to maximize their own utility and will do within the bounds of the societies to which they belong. It is within these two realities that members of a society believe they have a "right" to their actions.
- polobo
August 31, 2008 10:31PM
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.
does humane meat exist?
"cage-free" and "free-range" and "cruelty-free" and "certified humane" barely mean anything for animal welfare. Read more here:
http://www.humanemyth.org /
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 10:33AM
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.
does humane meat exist?
"cage-free" and "free-range" and "cruelty-free" and "certified humane" barely mean anything for animal welfare. Read more here:
http://www.humanemyth.org /
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 10:33AM
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.
voting with your dollars/ conscientious consumption
If you want to vote with your dollars consider:
- a vote for meat is a vote against the environment
- a vote for meat is a vote against human health
- a vote for meat is a vote against worker safety
- a vote for meat is a vote against animals
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 10:32AM
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.
Eating Happy Chickens Still Means Murder.
How does the genocide of one species differentiate to that of another? Yes, animals may be different compared to human beings but does that justify our reasons for their murder? Human beings can drive cars, they have opposable thumbs and they can talk, but animals can fly without machinery, can run 15 miles per hour and can communicate with one another in a way we can't even begin to understand. So how does the difference between the two mean that animals are below us?
Just because free range farming is "better" then factory farming, does not mean it is okay to kill animals who have absolutely no say in the matter. It's like saying it is okay to kill a Jewish man and mess with fate as long as he's happy.
- Masqueraderuse
November 5, 2008 3:21PM
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.
yummy in my tummy
I eat meat because it's my life and my body - and what I put in it is none of your business.
Murder occurs between humans- its one human taking the life of another without consent. Humans killing animals is called hunting, or feeding the world...unless of course that animal is not your property and you kill it without the consent of the owner - which in that case is destruction of property. But if I buy and raise a chicken, i can kill it, and eat its tasty flesh. Same with a cute little cow, i can kill it and make me some tasty steaks. Its my property, its my body, and I have the liberty to do what makes me happy - and that's eating meat when I want to eat meat. If i define my happiness this way, based on my values - there is no argument that PETA or any other anti-human organization can come up with that could make me happier.
And all your illogical ideas on elevating non-human species at or above the level of humans? wow....
If what you say is true - I welcome the day that cows and sheep try to outsmart us humans, maybe someday our sheep and cattle brother and sisters can vote and we'll have bi-species marriage...oh how wonderful!! we'll all eat some type of organic protein material that is not animal based (don't wanna hurt those vegans' feelings!) - in the meantime I'll be happy with exploiting them - enslaving them and cutting off their hair for my garments - stealing their milk for my tasty ice cream, and shooting them in the back of the head so they die a painless death and then cuttin' up the carcass to feed my hungry tummy. - I think I'll go get me some chicken nuggets and a hamburger..... thanks for showing me how silly animal-rights people are!
- selfish November 17, 2008 6:17PM
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.
selfish
I agree that you are selfish since you seem to be saying that your only consideration in regards to eating meat is whether you want to. If you wanted to eat Downs' syndrome infants or an aged person with severe dementia, it would wrong by society's ethical standards. What you desire isn't the only consideration if you want to live in society. I think we need to reconsider our ethical standards in regards to non-human animals. We re-considered sexism and racism, perhaps we're ready as a society to reconsider speciesism. I believe non-human animals deserve similar moral consideration to that enjoyed by humans. All of us mammals (humans included) and birds (and probably reptiles...) have a subjective experience and desires and the drive to continue living. I'm describing the characteristic of sentience. Sentience is really the only characteristic relevant to whether we're justified in breeding, confining and killing other species. Can you think of another?
The only defense you offer for eating meat, besides that you are selfish, is that cows and sheep aren't as smart as humans. Many individuals aren't as smart as many non-human animals (e.g. the humans referred to above), but that doesn't give us a right to eat them. If you think we are ethically justified in eating other mammal and bird species because of their level of intelligence, then, logically, you should find it justifiable to eat humans whose intelligence is at a similar level. Is that true? Society finds this repugnant.
A common justification for exploiting animals is that humans as a species are 'superior.' But that's not different from saying something like "I'm white and therefore superior. I can exploit blacks if I want." If you think it's okay to be racist, we have nothing to talk about. Speciesism is akin to bigotry.
I understand wanting to eat something you're accustomed to and defending that pleasure, even if there's no good justification for it. But meat only tastes good because of conditioning. Just consider what people eat in other cultures and you'll realize there's no innate DELICIOUSNESS to animal foods. I used to love the taste of meat. After learning more about animal ag, though, I committed to giving it up. After a couple of years being vegan I find animal flesh and secretions disgusting while plant foods are sublimely delicious.
I like that you say "shooting them in the back of the head so they die a painless death." That makes me think you do recognize that non-human animals have feelings and that you have some compassion for them. It's that compassion that eventually led me to change and I just wish I'd been more open to it years ago.
Sammy
- Sammy
December 30, 2008 9:32PM
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.