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 71 Comments on this Argument. See all 665 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

The Reason Foundation and CCF: An Absence of Valid Arguments

- From Gary L Francione

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Malnutrition, Not Starvation

Is the choice to go vegan a luxury that most people in the developed world don't currently have? People can get all their nutrients (except readily suplemntable B12) from plants. But doesn't this assume the existance of well-stocked grocery stores full of a diverse array of affordable plant-based food? Much, maybe most, of the world's population may not have access this. Animals, then, will continue to be necessary for human nutrition for most of the planet.

- heathu August 21, 2008 12:27PM

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.
- Education
  
  It just takes education and will-power.
  
  Water doesn't come from faucets everywhere, but with proper education and experience, everyone can have a sustainable way of living. You don't need a grocery store to subsist off of a plant-based diet. But you might need to learn a thing or two about agriculture and irrigation.
  
  The vast majority of the world's population lives in areas where there is fertile soil.
  
  I'm not saying it's easy, nor am I saying that it can happen in a mere 100 years. I am saying that it's possible, though, and to suggest otherwise fuels the fire of those who wish not to change for more selfish reasons.
  
  - mike August 21, 2008 2:11PM
  
  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 are you getting your information?
  
  It is obvious you are not a vegan not just because you are defending eating meat but because of your complete ignorance of the vegan diet. Diverse array of plant based foods? Such as vegetables, fruit, grains, lentils, beans? What are you talking about? I know there are a lot of processed vegan snack or 'instant' foods but I try to avoid them - because processed foods are BAD for you. I eat legumes, grains, fresh fruit & veg, pasta, rice, soy, tofu, spices & fresh herbs. I COPY a lot of the ingredients & cooking methods of these 'developing' countries you mention, such as India or Ethiopia. I do not eat hardly any processed foods, & when I do it is because of my modern city lifestyle = lack of time. I dont take ANY vitamin supplements, not even B12. I just had my blood tests done & again they were 'textbook perfect'. To sustain veganism is much easier for developing countries. The luxury is trying to sustain a meat based diet. If you don't believe me, go & do your research.
  
  - knuckles August 24, 2008 1:08AM
  
  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.
  - Why are you all talking about this?
    
    If there were 50 key issues facing this country this topic would not make the list. I like this site but reading these post does not impress me. We are never going to outlaw eating meat. People like meat and we like leather. You can talk until the cows come home but this will never change. Lets spend our time talking about important issue!!!!
    
    - jimstock63 August 24, 2008 8:51PM
    
    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.
    - Hmmm...
      
      Why do you think the moral rights of all sentient beings, the well-being of our environment, and a fundamental issue in human health and wellness are not important issues? First, by "this Country" I assume you mean the US. This is an issue that impacts the globe. Why did you choose the "yes" side if you think it's irrelevant? Why did you take the time to post on this site?
      
      "When are people going to learn that the affluent, White, Christian male is better than every other creature on the planet? Can't we just accept it and move on to more important issues?" How is your statement different than this?
      
      What's in your list of 50? I bet this issue ties directly into several of them, but you're simply unaware. Give it a try.
      
      - mike August 25, 2008 3:23PM
      
      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.
    - A Long Overdue Debate
      
      Jimstock63:
      
      The debate is NOT about changing the current law. The debate is about whether or not we are morally justified in exploiting and killing animals for food when we have no need to and excellent alternatives are readily available. In light of the fact that we currently slaughter approximately 12 billion animals annually in the US alone (53 billion worldwide), it is an extremely important issue that is long overdue for careful examination.
      
      Professor Francione has put forth brilliant and compelling arguments and the opposition, The Reason Foundation and CCF, have neither substantively addressed those arguments nor have they made any plausible opposing arguments. But as Professor Francione has noted, in fairness to The Reason Foundation and CCF, there IS no adequate response to the arguments against animal exploitation. It is only because we can exploit and kill animals that we do so; it is not because it is in any way morally justified.
      
      - dan August 25, 2008 5:39PM
      
      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 What
        
        OK, so the debate is ended since no rationale can be presented to defend the non-vegan position. The core of the pro-vegan position is that the non-vegan position is ethically wrong. Given the nature of ethics this boils down to "the pro-vegan position is absolutely right and since the non-vegan position is the inverse it is necessarily wrong". Pro-vegan has also added a few utilitarian perks to support their position.
        
        Now that the chest thumping is done how about actually presenting plans on how we would go from our ethically flawed model to the ethically superior one; since we cannot have the ethically superior one without such a change without finding an acceptable (for pro-vegans) path to traverse. Then comes the issue of affecting the actual changes (any plan would necessarily have to be specific to some governmental body as we are restricting the freedom of individuals and thus need to enforce non-compliance).
        
        You show an indifferent or non-believer your plan and you may convince them that the benefits of such a plan outweigh the benefits provided by the status-quo without resorting to ethics. If you can win them over on ethics alone then just point them to this debate that (by your own definition) has won the ethical argument.
        
        - polobo September 1, 2008 12:33AM
        
        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.
        
        Let me suggest a way to start: Explore vegan alternatives
        
        Hi polobo,
        
        Often people will rationalize meat-eating because they are deeply vested in eating meat. I'm not saying these situations are identical, but for sake of comparison, people defended slavery, and more recently defended cockfighting partly for the same reason. No one likes to be told not to do something they're doing, especially if they've been doing the thing for a long time, they are emotionally attached to it, and their friends and family are also doing it. (When lots of people are doing an activity, no matter how heinous, it can seem normal.) But if you're not vested in the activity, it is far easier to look at it objectively, criticize it, and see its ethical problems.
        
        So, how to proceed... Sites such as www.chooseveg.com , www.tryveg.com , and www.goveg.com provide some initial practical guidance on transitioning to a vegan diet. Also, search on "vegan " followed by a food dish or "vegan recipe" followed by a food dish and you are sure to come up with a list of suitable if not delicious and satisfying options. Most of us we eat a very small variety of foods - only a fraction of what is available, and most vegans end up eating a much larger variety of foods than they did before they were vegan. Think in terms of what there is to eat out there, not what you have to give up. Accentuate the positive.
        
        Most people who follow this path realize that their lifestyle becomes more in sync with their deepest moral impulses: being kind, being compassionate, refraining from inflicting avoidable harm. Benefits accrue not only to the animals but also in terms of peace of mond those who make an effort to abstain from violence in ther meals and daily activities.
        
        As more people divest from participating in the exploitation of animals, and become less defensive about perpetuating those exploitations, the laws will reflect those shifts in attitudes and behaviors.
        
        - garyl September 1, 2008 10:40AM
        
        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.
        
        I agree. Chest thumping will only marginalize validity.
        
        Good to see you popping over here, polobo. For as frustrating as I find you (perhaps because I've actually had to sit and think about your arguments instead of spout the preformed ones that counter the hype and rhetoric of those opposed to change), I respect your articulation.
        
        But I think that, considering you say that morality IS a factor in decision-making and human behavior, veganism will truly make sense to you. The reason is that the animals have absolutely no benefit, there is very little (if any) arguable utility in a true cost/benefit scale (if you want to take the utilitarian approach), and from a moral standpoint, it is completely inconsistent with how the vast majority of people empathize.
        
        So how is it done? Grass-roots education. I know. That can take forever. (it took 100 years for African Americans to be able to vote even after they were considered "equal" under the law). But there are many people who simply need to witness the atrocities and they're converted. There are others who need persistent, non-violent persuasion. Then there are yet others, like me, who needed to attack every aspect of the issue and pour over all varieties of informative sources before arriving at what I feel is the only consistent action for humans to take.
        
        - mike September 1, 2008 2:10PM
        
        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.
        
        Let's make it simple
        
        It is very simple, Polobo. You have not been reading the right arguments. You are getting all hung up and twisted up & going on a lot of tangents. Bottom line- he "plan"? - go vegan. It is a matter of choice not legislature, that is the point. You can choose to go vegan. We hope that more & more people will begin to make that choice until it is the norm rather than the exception. There are many issues that will come up along the way, our existence on this planet is problematic no matter what, but all we are trying to do is educate people to the basic fundamental issue of choice in this matter of our exploitation of all other living creatures on the planet. What is your view of morality? Why don't you give us your moral justification for eating meat? If you are bothered by it, it is very simple - go vegan. Then you do not need to rationalize anymore. If you choose not to go vegan, that is your choice. I recommend watching a very simple presentation-no sound, mostly words, & a few images. It will be of interest to someone as insatiably interested in this subject as yourself, maybe it speaks your language. Hope you watch it, but... it's YOUR CHOICE.
        http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/index.php?page_id=42
        
        - knuckles September 3, 2008 1:38AM
        
        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.
        
        :rollseyes:
        
        I guess my basic point is that if you find meat eating so appalling, comparing it to the Holocaust, then going about the solution in the way you are may indeed change some people to become vegan but I truly doubt you will make any significant progress in actually ending the practice.
        
        "You have not been reading the right arguments" - on what basis do you assert this; because I haven't been converted? I find the ethically absolute position lacking personally and ineffective as a means of affecting meaningful change in a society.
        
        "Why don't you give us your moral justification for eating meat" - because I do not have nor need one; at least not one that you would have any chance of agreeing with. I fundamentally see the world in a way that differs from you and no amount of argument is likely to change that. The only reason I would justify myself to is if you had something I valued that you would withhold if I kept eating meat (or you threatened to kill me to protect your beloved animals).
        
        "it's YOUR CHOICE" - at least you understand that much; though you underestimate the influence that others (and the environment) can have on those decisions. As for my insatiable interest, I am more intrigued in the debate and its foundations rather than the actual issue. I could conceive living in either society and thus prefer to focus on how to move the society as a whole toward the alternative if that is truly what is desired. Ignoring the fact that change is required ignores a large aspect of our reality. Consider nicotine addiction, even with the generally obvious negative consequences of smoking millions of people still do so. This is not unlike what you are proposing but your activity, eating meat, provides positive immediate feedback for most people with any negative feedback being long-term and subtle.
        
        - polobo September 3, 2008 6:38AM
        
        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
It's really not this complicated

There is this thing called a food chain, we are at the top. We eat things lower on the food chain. It's natural, normal and the way it should be. How we now "hunt" our food has changed, I agree we would probably all be a lot healthier and eat a lot less meat if we had to catch it but that doesn't negate the fact humans are omnivores.

- Jimmy P September 2, 2008 11:15AM

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.
- Might Makes Right
  
  Jimmy P has offered us justification for every atrocity humans have engaged in by invoking the timeless “food chain” argument, which is just another form of the “might makes right” argument. If we have the power to torture and kill, we ought to torture and kill. If Simon takes pleasure in torture, then Simon ought to torture, because Simon is more powerful (“higher on the food chain”) than his hapless victim.
  
  Sorry, Jimmy P, I’m not buying it.
  
  - dan September 2, 2008 12:11PM
  
  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.
  - Using morality to negate nature
    
    I'm sorry but that does not hold water, we are talking about a food source here not a concentration camp. If you haven't noticed nature is not a very nice lady, she violent and unforgiving. As least humans "well most of us" wait until our prey is dead before we start eating it.
    As far as how our meat gets to our table, I actually agree with a lot of what Peta says. The way animals are treated before they become our meal can be and is a lot of the time horrendous. But that does not make us any less omnivores and reflects the lack of morals in corporate America more than it does you or me as individuals.
    
    - Jimmy P September 2, 2008 1:25PM
    
    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.
    - Repeating History rather than Learning from History
      
      Appeals to “nature” don’t hold water. It is not “natural” to type on a computer. It is not “natural”, in the way you use the term, to do most of the things humans do.
      
      Slave owners appealed to the same arguments that non-vegans appeal to against ethical veganism: “Slaves are ‘naturally’ fit for slavery.” (Aristotle and slave owners made that claim.) “The Bible defends slavery.” “Slavery has been going on for millennia.” “Slavery is not necessarily cruel; we just need to reform it.” You could replace “slavery” with “exploiting animals” or “exploitation” or “slaughter” in all of these, which is what non-vegans generally do.
      
      We are repeating history. All the arguments defending slavery 200 years ago are now used to defend exploiting and killing nonhuman beings today. Just as it was with slavery, cultural prejudices, appeals to nature, appeals to tradition, and appeals to unrealistic reform are made rather than a detached, serious, and well-reasoned examination of the issue. Read Gary Francione’s arguments on this topic – they are irrefutable.
      
      - dan September 2, 2008 1:58PM
      
      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.
    - Let us practice our better natures and be compassionate
      
      Hi Jimmy P,
      
      First, here's where we agree: Animals by and large in the "corporate food chain" are treated horrendously. If all you did was refrain from supporting those cruelties, you would drastically reduce your intake of meat, dairy, and eggs, and of products that contain those ingredients. That would be a great start.
      
      The vast majority of animal products sold in stores come from factory farms. This is mostly a function of high demand and corporate greed. But consumers are also culpable; they have the choice whether to support cruelty and human-inflicted suffering of animals.
      
      Keep in mind that even on small, local farms, calves are routinely stolen from their mothers when they're only two days old, laying hens come from hatcheries in which the male chicks are ground up alive soon after being born, "broiler" chickens are genetically engineered to grow so fast that they suffer painful joint problems and sometimes have heart attacks when only a few weeks old, animals are castrated without painkillers, and animals are starved for one or more days (for economic reasons) before being slaughtered.
      
      At one so-called humane farm near me, investigators saw turkeys outside in 95 degree heat with no access to shade or water. That's "free range." At another local farm, some pigs were being starved to death; they were so weak they had to be carried out on a stretcher. I could go on and on.
      
      And the violence in slaughterhouses is nearly beyond belief. In her book "Slaughterhouse," Gail Eiznitz interviews one slaughterhouse worker after another; each tells of ferocious, even sadistic violence done to animals who were already weak, frightened, and traumatized. We find similar brutalities repeatedly in undercover investigations of slaughterhouses; we see workers kicking downed cows, punching turkeys who are hanging upside down in shackles, throwing chickens against the wall, and so forth.
      
      Transport to the slaughterhouse is quite horrific in itself: animals stuffed tightly into trucks (or multiple levels of cages), with no protection from the heat or cold, and given no water or food despite traveling for many hours sometimes.
      
      Regarding nature...Nature also has vegetarians, such as our close relative the gorilla, who is practically vegan. Why not emulate him?
      
      But let us not pretend that we are fated by nature to be violent, when in fact we have a choice (unlike other meat-eating species). We can place ourselves anywhere we want on the food chain. Why not make the most compassionate choice?
      
      - garyl September 2, 2008 3:12PM
      
      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.
  - Ought
    
    This fails specifically because acts require decisions and those decisions involve consequences. I have the power to kill other humans but do not because I would in turn be killed. More generally I value the fact I can buy food from farmers and thus do not have to grow my own. I would not kill the farmer selling me food even if though I can.
    
    Might/Power, like a gun, is merely a tool and, even if you support the notion of good and evil, is indifferent - and unaffected - to why it is wielded.
    
    - polobo September 2, 2008 3:56PM
    
    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.
    - Consequences?
      
      So if I understand you correctly, polobo, you would have no moral issue with killing humans except for the fact that you might not “get away with it” or there may be negative consequences.
      
      Most people would say that they refrain from killing humans primarily because they think it is wrong, not because there might be negative consequences. In fact, if I didn’t think killing was wrong, and I was feeling suicidal, I might well go on a random killing rampage before killing myself. Fortunately, I’m not suicidal and I do think killing is wrong.
      
      - dan September 2, 2008 4:08PM
      
      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 Either/Or
        
        My understanding and acceptance of feedback/consequences/utility does not preclude my having a set of morals which also guide my actions. Our morals generate internal emotional feedback that makes us feel happy/guilty/angry/etc whereas utility concerns are external and generally provide tangible feedback. It is somewhat apparent (to me at least) that different people have different sets of morals; although the fact that you cannot have actions without both utility and moral considerations makes identifying such differences difficult.
        
        I am individually no more "qualified" (or effective) in judging another's morals as they are in judging mine. We give such authority to the societies we form (forming a composite moral set of its members) but otherwise if I insist in having you adopt my moral code either I need to apply leverage, convince you to change (a form of leverage - getting you to realize there is more benefit in the alternative), get the society to enforce it, or else.
        
        I assume "you" (meaning and/or others) agree that killing is OK (morals aside) in some circumstances (e.g., defending yourself or others facing untimely death) thus even your moral position has conditions and valuations. I also assume you do not sabotage industrial animal farms for some practical reason because, by these arguments, their treatment of animals is worse than the treatment of Jews, etc... during WWII where a good portion of the world went to war and killed each other to enforce a moral position. Even then the U.S. needed a direct attack on Pearl Harbor to formally enter the war instead of basing its decision on recognizing the immorality of the situation.
        
        - polobo September 2, 2008 8:09PM
        
        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.
        
        Most people agree: killing for pleasure or out of habit is wrong
        
        Hi polobo,
        
        The major religious and secular moral codes of the world urge compassion and proscribe harming others whenever possible. There are exceptions for things like self-defense that are generally understood to be valid. I assume we generally agree on moral principles such as the golden rule, and on basic moral guidelines such as having mercy toward those less powerful than you.
        
        But I would also appeal to your sense of empathy and compassion. Why harm other sentient beings if you don't need to, and if doing so can be easily avoided?
        
        - garyl September 2, 2008 8:46PM
        
        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.
        
        Abstract Thinking
        
        Just some specific theoretical thoughts:
        
        The Golden Rule works well we you have a reasonable expectation that indeed "someone" could do to you what you do to them.
        
        How are you defining mercy? One could find it merciful to put someone "out of their misery". One could also ignore them and let them fend for themselves (probably resulting in their death if they cannot provide food and shelter on their own).
        
        I would suggest that empathy and compassion only truly apply for someone sharing a similar moral code as the one you seem to possess. Appealing to it when you cannot get them to acknowledge your moral position seems incongruous. A similar situation results when consider religious codes; and secular moral codes are those related to the society one has "chosen" to live in and thus represent utilitarian concerns anyway.
        
        - polobo September 2, 2008 9:13PM
        
        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
      - Pick tougher topics
        
        You pick a fairly easy topic (human murder) where you indeed find a vast majority of the human population agrees on the morals. Consider, however, homosexuality (avoiding animals intentionally) and the response it has been given by the population of the United States. Society has deemed it proper to grant certain right and privileges to a singular man and woman who wish to be married. I assert this has nothing or little to do with children as they are not a certain in any particular marriage nor required to receive these benefits. Our society has decided to withhold these rights to homosexual couples. ** I personally find this immoral **. On what basis, given the previous definition of sentience, would you attack this position (either side) without resorting to "might makes right" and utility. I do not want this to sidetrack too much and don't really need or expect a detailed answer but consider this in light of the previous post as well as generally as relating to your own concept of morality.
        
        - polobo September 2, 2008 8:20PM
        
        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.
        
        Get even tougher
        
        The easiest approach to this one is because they're using The God of Abraham to justify their moral position. Not that I really want to get into that here, but the best way for the Supreme Court to bring something as foolish as this back to the table and disregard the decision is to come to terms with the fact that Superman should not be telling us what to do, and neither should some scattered accounts of some other mythical being FAR less consistent than Superman and chock-full of dogma. The decision must be based on logic and reason.
        
        Again, it comes down to interests. But, to be fair, something as arbitrary as US Marital Laws can simply not come under the realm of morality. A moral discussion would be based on the consequences or benefits that come from the enforcement of this law. The law, by itself, is meaningless.
        
        - mike September 2, 2008 9:08PM
        
        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.
        
        Actually
        
        They are using "The Congress" to justify their moral position; which I have no inherent problem with as that is the way that this society, which I have accepted to have authority over my actions in exchange for protection and other desires, works. God is merely the attributed source for their inner moral position. Where does you compassion for animals come from? The Supreme Court(s) can only "disregard" this on the basis of contradiction with regard to existing law since otherwise the will of the people living today ultimately decide what is morally right for the society in which they reside. I disagree with their position but acknowledge that they are both entitled to it and have the fundamental right, afforded by our laws, to make me oblige as well - or move. I cannot say their position is wrong since I can not disprove (to their satisfaction) the existence of their God or more generally the source of their feelings/morals.
        
        My moral US marital law argument would be based upon the exact same core assumption being used to attack animal ownership: Humans are sentient beings who have desires and the right to be treated the same as any other sentient being. If we give a right to one sentient being we should give the same right to all of them. Quibble on whether marriage is a right but given it is granted by the society I would assert that it therefore must be.
        
        - polobo September 2, 2008 9:38PM
        
        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.
- Same Coin; Different Side
  
  Your use of "natural" is just as bad as the oppositions use of "ethical" and it leads to chest beating without actually helping either side to understand the other. You use "natural" without attempting to explain the decisions and conditions that led us "naturally" to where we are today. Our world changes constantly if the conditions that applied when we made the decision to mass-produce food (or our knowledge thereof) has changed then looking at the currently existing conditions and possibly making a new choice is warranted.
  
  - polobo September 2, 2008 3:57PM
  
  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.
  - chest beating?
    
    The thing that you people are not getting is: it is very simple. Why are you making it so complicated? It truly is, almost more than anything else, a matter of personal choice. You can go vegan. Children may not have that choice if they are living with meat eating parents. But if there is a shift in the world to veganism on a global scale, far into the future though that may be, then that issue will be moot, because there will be no meat eating parents. If this issue bothers you so much, the answer is so simple; once you are an adult and in charge of your own nutrition as the VAST MAJORITY of adult humans are (note: I didn't say all, there are always exceptions, don't go off on another tangent), then it is a very simple choice to make. The thing is, it is so ingrained in our culture and our psyche and our economics, that people cannot get their head around a life without animal products. I have a suggestion. Why don't you try it? If you care so much about the issue, why don't you try to live without animal products, even for a day? Please believe me - it is very easy to do. It is as easy as saying, now, shall I have the pork or shall I have the chick peas? Hmmmmm. Not too much of a stretch, IF you care about the issue. However if you have real economic interest in animal exploitation, you are going to justify it and "beat your chest" until the "cows come home". That's a motive I recognize, it exists on a massive scale, but it is not to those whom we are looking for change. It is a grass roots "movement" if it can be called that. What is your personal position, in your own life? I am just curious.
    
    - knuckles September 3, 2008 1:53AM
    
    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.
  - chest beating?
    
    The thing that you are not getting is: it is very simple. Why are you making it so complicated? It truly is, almost more than anything else, a matter of personal choice. You can go vegan. Children may not have that choice if they are living with meat eating parents. But if there is a shift in the world to veganism on a global scale, far into the future though that may be, then that issue will be moot, because there will be no meat eating parents. If this issue bothers you so much, the answer is so simple; once you are an adult and in charge of your own nutrition as the VAST MAJORITY of adult humans are (note: I didn't say all, there are always exceptions, don't go off on another tangent), then it is a very simple choice to make. The thing is, it is so ingrained in our culture and our psyche and our economics, that people cannot get their head around a life without animal products. I have a suggestion. Why don't you try it? If you care so much about the issue, why don't you try to live without animal products, even for a day? Please believe me - it is very easy to do. It is as easy as saying, now, shall I have the pork or shall I have the chickpeas? Hmm. Not too much of a stretch IF you care about the issue. However if you have real economic interest in animal exploitation, you are going to justify it and "beat your chest" until the "cows come home". That's a motive I recognize, it exists on a massive scale, but it is not to those whom we are looking for change. It is a grass roots "movement" if it can be called that. What is your personal position, in your own life? I am just curious. Oh wait, you have already answered that; you either can’t come up with a justification, or you have one but you won’t tell us because it’s beyond our comprehension. That argument is getting really tiring. The “I don’t agree with you but I’m not going to tell you why so there!” or “Because I said so that’s why”. It’s getting old. That is not debating anything.
    
    - knuckles September 3, 2008 10:53PM
    
    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.
    - Above
      
      I rephrased and expanded my argument in the other comment line but I want to address the "because I said so, that's why" comment you make here. You are asking for my insight into my decision making progress and then calling such insight wrong because it does not conform with the answer you want to hear. I do not purport to know that what I am saying is correct; I am merely stating the conclusions I have formed over my (limited) lifetime of experience in this society and self-reflection.
      
      You can target anyone and take any approach that you wish in your quest to make your inner turmoil subside - since that goal and the goal of actually ending the practice of animal ownership are not mutually inclusive.
      
      I realize I am being difficult and have hijacked this debate and moved it away from the "should we" question and toward something more constructive; leaving people behind in the process. Coming into the alternate debate and insisting on staying on the "should we" topic is going to frustrate you since I will not play that game. You respond to my comment in this post without even acknowledging the question I posed, let alone even attempting an answer as mike did, and you want me to take you seriously?
      
      Try saying this aloud: I accept that people have other factors besides morality (e.g., addiction, ingrained behavior, economics, apathy) which affect their (in)decision to become vegans. My goal, however, is to target indifferent (generally receiving no economic benefit) people and get them to realize the immorality of eating meat and hopefully convince them to go vegan. With enough people making this choice the industries supporting our meat eating habits will become less profitable and will slowly go away as well. I recognize that some people may very well have a different idea of morality than me but I am not concerned about them at the moment, I only want to get those who share my morals to give stronger weight to the feelings those morals instill and thus overcome what is currently a zero net force.
      
      - polobo September 4, 2008 8:58AM
      
      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.
      - because you said so
        
        in your earlier reply to my previous comment (smoking, holocaust etc) you said "I feel that humans are better than animals" but you don't say WHY. Honesty appreciated - clearly, you feel the same way as wrww in that you don't feel it is immoral. thank you for your honesty and for finally saying that. I cannot use the ethical argument against you, someone else can debate you, you can be happy, finally i have gotten all i need to know with regard to your attitude to that particular issue. I admit at present I solely have one argument; my argument is the moral one. i leave it to others to discuss environment etc, there are plenty of well-informed vegans who will debate on those grounds. but still, what i mean is: again, you don't say WHY. and you are debating me with regard to the moral issue, at least that is my understanding, that is what I have been debating with you. I always say why i feel it is immoral. i don't say, I feel it is immoral fullstop. I give a reason. You don't. So i am trying to get that out of you. I finally got you to admit that "...for the purposes of consuming them I find no moral fault. I do consider humans to be better than animals..."
        Well, what is your reason for that? Because you feel that way. But why? There must be a reason. Anyway, you have already made it clear you do not consider animals as part of the moral community, so I will move on, as I freely admit I personally am trying to reach those who do, even if they don't realize it yet. Once you tell me that, well I myself, it is my lack I am sure, I don't have an answer for someone who feels that way, because I really think that if you feel that way, it is a waste of time to try to get you to become vegan for ANY reason. I hope I am wrong. If you are not grabbed by the moral issue, then I doubt very much you will do it for any other reason you may be waiting for me to come up with. But I may be wrong, I can only use what I have at my disposal. It's just frustrating to debate someone and they won't bite the bullet. It IS saying "because I said so" but it is not saying WHY. And that is not a debate. 'Nuff said though. You have already told me what I need to know about you, and I am not judging you, I admit I have no answer for someone who feels that for the purposes of consuming animals there is no moral fault, and who considers humans to be "better" than animals. I am still curious to know why, but I accept I may not get an answer. It's not about giving an answer I find "satisfactory", or by "converting".. It's by giving an answer, period. But, you don't. Then you say "you wouldn't like my answers" or "you wouldn't understand my answers". Very convenient for you. Why don't you try me? All I would like to have is your reason, in black and white, specifically why you don't feel it is immoral. But you have a right not to give one, and by golly you have exercised that right. Enjoy the rest of the debate!
        
        - knuckles September 4, 2008 3:51PM
        
        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.
        
        Appreciate the pointed response
        
        I am sorry not to put forth any response but it seemed that putting forth a reason behind those attitudes would just get shot down as immoral or invalid since the requester usually uses their own moral reference instead of actually trying to honestly understand and acknowledge that other positions are real and meaningful.
        
        So, to put it bluntly, you would probably classify me as egotistical and utilitarian. To go into why I am that way would require the assistance of a shrink and beer, plus a couple of days to work though my life history.
        
        The question I pose: is my personality is a minority or a majority within your social frame of reference? You say "If you are not grabbed by the moral issue...I doubt very much you will do it for any other reason" but in fact the opposite is true; I am more likely to go vegan for non-moral reasons that directly impact my way of life than I am for moral considerations that are mostly neutral for me. I indeed morally lean toward freeing all animals from our oppression but not enough to actually take the initiative to affect changes; and it is unlikely that you will be able to make me lean further by solely relying on the "animals rights" argument. My entrenched behaviors are difficult to overcome and I only have so much willpower to go around. I enjoy what meat I do consume (and it isn't a daily habit) and I do not experience the realities of the industry first hand and can mentally suppress that which I know to be occurring in order to sleep at night and focus my time and efforts on making a living for myself (which this discussion is really cutting into since - anyone know how I can get paid to do this...).
        
        - polobo September 4, 2008 4:35PM
        
        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.
        
        thank you
        
        Hi thank you I am enjoying this, I appreciate you taking the time to respond because I am new to this and just learning how to debate this issue and I am trying very hard to be most effective. Honestly this is the last thing and then I will let you get back to your... introspection, I guess maybe is what it is. I know what you mean my eyes are burning from attempting these debates all night on my computer when I would rather be sleeping.
        OK here goes:
        "I indeed morally lean toward freeing all animals from our oppression"
        yet "for the purposes of consuming them I find no moral fault...."
        Also you mention you enjoy what meat you do consume, I guess that is why you continue to consume whatever quantity of it you consume... So, if you do truly lean morally towards freeing all animals from our oppression, I would think that logically speaking that would lead to the conclusion that you would be leaning towards not consuming them at all, no matter how much you enjoy the taste? Although, if on the other hand, you find no moral fault for the purposes of consuming them, you will continue in that case to consume them because you enjoy the taste every now and then? It seems ambiguous (sp?). Take care and peace to you.
        
        - knuckles September 4, 2008 5:29PM
        
        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
- Food chain?
  
  Sorry, Jimmy, you are not at the top of the food chain. Get real. A lion will make a snack of you in five seconds.
  
  - sor666 August 31, 2009 10:47AM
  
  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.
  - Food Chain, ridicules assumptions
    
    Sure, you stick an unarmed solitary human in a cage with a lion and the lion will win. Problem with your statement is humans don't normally travel the bush alone or unarmed. We have evolved to the point where through the use of tools and cooperation we can take down a lion.
    
    - Jimmy P September 1, 2009 8:57AM
    
    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.
    - Most people contributed nothing to human evolution
      
      Who is 'we'- certainly there are some exceptionally gifted humans who came up with amazing inventions- but they are 1 in a million- the remainider of the human race are mostly of low intelligence. So, it was not you personally who invented anything of the kind and that would apply to most people.
      
      - sor666 September 2, 2009 10:16PM
      
      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 assumptions
        
        I meant we as in the species Homo sapiens. Your statement that most people are of low intelligence is a little elitist don't you think.
        
        - Jimmy P September 3, 2009 1:36PM
        
        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.
      - contribution
        
        Anyone who reproduces contributes to the evolution of the human species.
        
        - MrBook September 13, 2009 12:00PM
        
        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.
Justice?

Right--the question is do we have a "moral justification". Or as you invoke the ancient greek philosopher you could say "Is is just to eat animals" That's the trap that we meat eaters cannot get out of in this debate. The real fact is that we don't care if meat eating is just, or if we have moral justification--we certainly don't have one. In that regard we bring ourselves to the mentality of wolves. I do not think about the long range, long term consequences of my killing of a deer for food. Mass meat eating could eventually lead to depletion of food stuffs right? but I'm not concerned about eventual starvations and malnutritions in the human population, which exist that in natures cycles for all other organisms as a kind of population balancing phenomenon. I don't think it is any question that many of our actions as humans could eventually lead to population depletion--I'm have to be OK with that on some level to "justify" my actions.

- wrww September 3, 2008 12:23PM

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.
- finally
  
  "That's the trap that we meat eaters cannot get out of in this debate. The real fact is that we don't care if meat eating is just, or if we have moral justification--we certainly don't have one."
  Thank you! at least you are being honest (are you? well, probably). But wait, then you start to talk about wolves. I beg to differ, you do not have the mentality of wolves - do not exult yourself so high. ha ha. But seriously, thank you for your honesty and may I ask... how do you sleep at night? No I am just kidding. It's not about deer hunting or about human population depletion. The majority of people feel empathy and do not want to be the cause of unnecessary suffering, and they do care. I believe, although I may be wrong, that you are the exception. The thing is, animal exploitation is so widely accepted, such a huge taken-for-granted part of our lives, that people have not really been challenged to justify it morally, it just is... Well the times they are a changin', and you are in the minority I hope. But, refreshing honesty, truly appreciated. Nuff said. Exeunt wrww!
  
  - knuckles September 4, 2008 2:51AM
  
  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.
  - Most people?
    
    Yes I'm being honest. Sorry about the bad grammar--I hope that's not what made you say that I'm not as great as a wolf. In your response you say some interesting things.
    "The majority of people feel empathy and do not want to be the cause of unnecessary suffering and they do care"--Sure a lot of people don't realize where their meat comes from, but that still seems like kind of a straw man argument--maybe just from my point of view though. I'm from Wyoming--I've hunted and raised cattle chickens and goats and sheep. I've slaughtered (quickly, but you may be one of those people don't care how quickly--it's still killing). Many people in my experience do not consider these actions to be causng "unnecessary suffering" and it seems to me that many people who are in the animal rights movement seem to put animal suffering on equal footing to human suffering, which I find very strange. Sure I don't want to hurt my dog, but a bear or mountain lion does not empathize with me or any of its food sources--some say because they don't have a way to do that, which is possible, but I think they do care about their families and they don't caniblize....) Why should I empathize across species lines especially with animals like cows and pigs and deer that really don't want to have anything to do with me? I don't really put a lot of credence in the empathizing with animals argument. I think the argument that makes more sense is the one about efficient use of resources and energy. One thing that I notice (correct me if I'm wrong) is that a lot of people in the U.S. who are heavy into veganism and animal rights do not come from backgrounds where people raise animals for food products or hunt--many in fact rely on others to grow their vegetables and grains for them, so it would only make sense from their point of view to use natural resources in the most efficient way so that they will not be without (if there was a shortage, they would be screwed--I would still be eating deer). But also in that regard, hunting and fishing are not the same as farming. I would hope that the animal rights movement would condone the existence of wild deer and antelope--Something is going to eat them and it does not remove any resources not already taken to eat them (people also regulate how many can be killed to make sure they stay correctly populated). Farming on the other hand is quite artificial and directly, purposely removes a lot of agricultural resources. The question of course, as I said earlier, is do I care enough to feed you? And a larger question--do I have the right to manage large chunks of land that I "own" and demand trade for the food there. In a tribal system (I like those), it would be perfectly natural for the people in a certain place to manage the land where they dwell and trade commodities gained from it to others. But in our less natural society, we have a different set up, so do you own some of the land in our "national community" even if you live in say NY city (sorry I'm not trying to make assumptions, just for argument sake--I'm not actually a land owner either). If I do have some kind of property rights, do I feel like I'm even getting a fair trade for what I consider to be mine if I'm trading a necessecity to life for...um what is it I'm getting for this again? and IPOD? Do you yave a right to demand grain from me instead of beef?
    
    - wrww September 4, 2008 12:43PM
    
    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.
- Yes, honesty is refreshing
  
  It certainly is refreshing to see honesty about this issue from the Yes side. It is so blatantly obvious to me that there is no moral justification for exploiting and intentionally killing animals, and I’m always astounded at the attempts to “justify” it. The best response from those who contribute to exploitation or intentional killing is simply that moral justification doesn’t matter. To say: “Sure, we’re not morally justified, but so what? Why be moral? Why not be an egoist and do whatever the law or society permit?”
  
  To that response, I have no arguments to give. It is only when people try to “justify” exploitation and intentional killing that they don’t have a rational leg to stand on.
  
  - dan September 4, 2008 10:14AM
  
  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.
  - Morals
    
    There is no point in arguing morals here, morals are like derrieres, everyone has them and they are all different.
    
    I would never intentionally harm another living creature just for the sake of doing it.
    
    I believe that every human on this earth has the right to live the way they want as long as it does not adversely affect others (Humans). If you want to be a vegan go for it, just remember to take your B12 so the rest of us don’t have to pay your medical bills.
    
    Feeling morally self-righteous and believing your cause of choice outweighs everyone else’s beliefs is wrong and has caused more death, started more wars and been the motivation for more cruelty then anything.
    
    - Jimmy P September 4, 2008 11:27AM
    
    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.
    - Morality should be well-reasoned
      
      Jimmy P:
      
      If someone claims they don’t care about morals or the morality of a given act, then there is nothing to discuss and “no point in arguing about morals.” However, if someone claims they do care about morals and believe there is justification for what they do, then there is a lot to discuss and thinking rationally about morals and justifications is very important.
      
      You say you “would never intentionally harm another living creature just for the sake of doing it.” What if you got pleasure from it, directly or indirectly? Many people do get pleasure from harming other living creatures and use that “rationale” to “justify” the harm they inflict. In fact, that is what this whole topic is about: whether or not we are justified in harming another sentient being merely because we derive pleasure from it. There may be a difference between being a sadist (i.e. deriving pleasure directly from the harm) and consuming animal products (i.e. deriving pleasure indirectly from the harm), but that difference is disturbingly small. In the end, whether the pleasure is derived directly or indirectly, you are still harming solely because you derive pleasure (indirectly via the taste of animal products) from the harm.
      
      Why does every human have “the right to live the way they want as long as it does not adversely affect others (Human)” and why only humans? What, specifically, is so special about humans that we have that right but other sentient beings who want to be left alone and be happy just as much as we do don’t have that right? It is pure dogma (unjustified belief) that humans are somehow “special”. You cannot come up with a relevant difference that would justify different treatment.
      
      Finally, I assert that wars are caused from some people violating the rights of others (human or nonhuman), and that if you want to avoid wars, stop stepping on others (human and nonhuman) rights and well-being. That said, what we’re talking about here is not whether ARAs should “wage war” on non-vegans, but whether we are justified in inflicting harm on innocent nonhuman beings for our pleasures. We are not justified and it is absurd to try to justify it. The best response from the Yes side is “it’s not justified, but I don’t care whether it is justified or not, I’m doing it anyway.”
      
      - dan September 4, 2008 11:55AM
      
      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.
      - Morality can't be reasoned
        
        "You say you “would never intentionally harm another living creature just for the sake of doing it.” What if you got pleasure from it, directly or indirectly?"
        
        If you get pleasure from directly inflicting pain on a living creature you are sick and need help. The reason we get pleasure from eating meat is the same reason we get pleasure from sex, because if we didn't we would be extinct.
        
        You can justify eating an unnatural diet because you have empathy for all living things and can't bear to see them suffer and that’s fine.(note: Plants are also living creatures, just because you have no tangible way of sensing their pain does not mean they don't feel pain.) Just face the fact that humans are and have always been omnivores, morality, conscience or legislation will not change that.
        
        I can't argue morality with you because you’re and my moralities are totally different. You will always be right in your eyes, I will always be right in mine. You would have more luck appealing to my code of honor then my morals.
        
        Morality is not messing around on your wife because you think it's wrong.
        
        Honor is not messing around on your wife because she thinks it's wrong.
        
        - Jimmy P September 5, 2008 7:24AM
        
        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.
        
        If morality isn't well-reasoned, it isn't morality
        
        Jimmy P:
        
        First, although it is true that we have evolved with animal products in our diet, the evidence of our vegetarian, ape-like digestive tract is overwhelming in favor of a mostly plant-based diet with very small quantities (1% to around 3%) of meat, eggs and dairy. The designations “herbivore”, “omnivore”, and “carnivore” are very crude categories that don’t allow for the spectrum of transition areas between them. I would say that, by evolutionary standards, we are really 95-99% herbivore and 1-5% omnivore, yet because of blind tradition and cultural dogma, we call ourselves “omnivores”.
        
        So, to call a vegan diet “unnatural” is an exaggeration at best, and even absurd, when faced with the biological and nutritional evidence available today. If there is anything unnatural, it is gorging ourselves with the quantities of flesh and bodily fluids that the average American does, which leads to heart disease, high cholesterol (which is often unnaturally medicated due to poor diet), and obesity, just to name a few of the health problems associated with being an “omnivore.”
        
        About animal suffering: It is not that I “cannot bear to see them suffer”. In fact, being an animal rights advocate, I expose myself to their suffering almost every day. Suffering and death is a part of life for every being born and it is something that I am very comfortable with, including, and perhaps especially, my own pain and death.
        
        My problem with our use of animals is that I think it is plain and obviously wrong to exploit and kill them for our pleasures or preferences. I don’t arbitrarily distinguish exploiting and killing nonhumans from exploiting and killing humans, because there really is no difference. I realize that idea that there is no difference flies in the face of our cultural dogma, but I think the dogma is just that – dogma – highly cherished, unquestioned and unjustified belief that originated in religious dogma. For me, it is a matter of moral principle, not a matter of not being able to “bear to see them suffer”.
        
        As far as honor goes, honor is little more than a ridiculous obsession with what the herd thinks. It is looking to culture rather to oneself for approval and approbation. Personally, I think notions like honor and pride are for those who have not been shown how to think for themselves and to rely on themselves for their sense of self-worth. Instead, they have been taught to look to the herd for what to think and for their self-worth. I forget who said it, but I like it: “It is better to be at war with the world and at peace with yourself than to be at peace with the world but at war with yourself.”
        
        So yes, morality – what I think about my own actions – is far more important to me than honor – what others think of my actions.
        
        - dan September 5, 2008 1:24PM
        
        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.
        
        There is no reason in morality
        
        "So, to call a vegan diet “unnatural” is an exaggeration at best, and even absurd, when faced with the biological and nutritional evidence available today."
        
        You can't survive on a Vegan diet without supplements. You can reason away facts all you want but it does not change them.
        
        "As far as honor goes, honor is little more than a ridiculous obsession with what the herd thinks"
        
        No that would be morality, people do horrible things to other people in the name of morality. Honor is a sense of what’s right and wrong and how you apply it when dealing with others.
        
        - Jimmy P September 6, 2008 11:06AM
        
        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
    - About B12
      
      One more thing, Jimmy P:
      
      You said we should make sure we get enough B12 so others don’t have to pay for our hospital bills. I agree with that, but would add that non-vegans should avoid animal products so we don’t have to pay for your hospital bills from high cholesterol, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and even cancer.
      
      - dan September 4, 2008 12:23PM
      
      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.
  - It raises more questions too.
    
    Yes I'm being honest. Sorry about the bad grammar--I hope that's not what made you say that I'm not as great as a wolf. In your response you say some interesting things.
    "The majority of people feel empathy and do not want to be the cause of unnecessary suffering and they do care"--Sure a lot of people don't realize where their meat comes from, but that still seems like kind of a straw man argument--maybe just from my point of view though. I'm from Wyoming--I've hunted and raised cattle chickens and goats and sheep. I've slaughtered (quickly, but you may be one of those people don't care how quickly--it's still killing). Many people in my experience do not consider these actions to be causng "unnecessary suffering" and it seems to me that many people who are in the animal rights movement seem to put animal suffering on equal footing to human suffering, which I find very strange. Sure I don't want to hurt my dog, but a bear or mountain lion does not empathize with me or any of its food sources--some say because they don't have a way to do that, which is possible, but I think they do care about their families and they don't caniblize....) Why should I empathize across species lines especially with animals like cows and pigs and deer that really don't want to have anything to do with me? I don't really put a lot of credence in the empathizing with animals argument. I think the argument that makes more sense is the one about efficient use of resources and energy. One thing that I notice (correct me if I'm wrong) is that a lot of people in the U.S. who are heavy into veganism and animal rights do not come from backgrounds where people raise animals for food products or hunt--many in fact rely on others to grow their vegetables and grains for them, so it would only make sense from their point of view to use natural resources in the most efficient way so that they will not be without (if there was a shortage, they would be screwed--I would still be eating deer). But also in that regard, hunting and fishing are not the same as farming. I would hope that the animal rights movement would condone the existence of wild deer and antelope--Something is going to eat them and it does not remove any resources not already taken to eat them (people also regulate how many can be killed to make sure they stay correctly populated). Farming on the other hand is quite artificial and directly, purposely removes a lot of agricultural resources. The question of course, as I said earlier, is do I care enough to feed you? And a larger question--do I have the right to manage large chunks of land that I "own" and demand trade for the food there. In a tribal system (I like those), it would be perfectly natural for the people in a certain place to manage the land where they dwell and trade commodities gained from it to others. But in our less natural society, we have a different set up, so do you own some of the land in our "national community" even if you live in say NY city (sorry I'm not trying to make assumptions, just for argument sake--I'm not actually a land owner either). If I do have some kind of property rights, do I feel like I'm even getting a fair trade for what I consider to be mine if I'm trading a necessecity to life for...um what is it I'm getting for this again? and IPOD? Do you yave a right to demand grain from me instead of beef?
    
    - wrww September 4, 2008 12:44PM
    
    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.
    - Equating human and animal suffering
      
      wrww:
      
      I imagine you find equating human and nonhuman suffering strange because it has been accepted as unquestioned dogma in our culture that they are not and cannot be the same. A closer look, however, shows that unquestioned assumption to be wrong. It may be true that some animals are less sensitive to certain pain or harm than some humans, but it is also true that the pain and harm inflicted on animals can and often does equal or exceed that of humans. It is completely irrelevant whose pain it is. If it is significant pain, it is significant pain, and therefore morally relevant to the degree that it exists and equally across race, sex, and species.
      
      There is nothing that makes humans “special.” There are many humans who don’t care about me any more than they care about a rock (some of them are mentally disabled, others just don’t care), but that does not justify my exploitation or killing of them. We can and ought to leave animals alone.
      
      - dan September 4, 2008 1:37PM
      
      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.
      - I wasn't make that "wrong" assumption--
        
        Wait--I'm not saying that animals don't feel pain as much as I do--I'm sure they do! I've killed more than one animal and there is no question they felt pain. But I am saying, once again, that I don't care as much about them. That is NOT at all unnatural, (but not all natural occurrences are moral by many peoples standards), but I don't think that attitude is wrong: I don't know if it is ethically justifiable, but I think it is natural. This is why:
        Certainly we can make the obvious observation that when I've been hurt--it..well...really sucked, so it wouldn't be "moral" for me to do that to another being, but that's all a game of psychological ideals, not physical realities--- I NATURALLY identify (you may say 'empathize') more with my own species, even more with people from my own culture, and even more with my own community, then with my family and most with myself. I do not identify with a horse as much as I do with my sister. I think that people that say that they care about an animal's, or even a human stranger's life or wellbeing as much as their own, or their own childs, or their own wife or husband's are probably really lying (I hope that's not insulting, but whatever). It doesn't matter to what extent people want to convince themselves about golden rules, I think nobody feels my pain as much as I do (if at all?) and I don't feel theirs as much as they do. I don't believe that most anybody can truly value the pain, suffering and or death of another being as much as the victim of that pain. So then starting from the self and moving out through my family, community, larger communities, cultures and then finally species--I would say that I really in a very functional way do value the pain of animals in another species quite less and in fact most every sentient being does this because is is phycially natural. Now don't think that I go around squashing toads for no reason--I only kill for my own or families physical sustainability and protection, but I certainly have no basis for "empathizing" with reptiles or fish--I know that they are alive and can feel pain, but their existence and well being as entities other than food are not as valuable to me a humans.
        
        - wrww September 5, 2008 3:07PM
        
        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.
        
        Nothing wrong with a preference for family and friends, but...
        
        wrww:
        
        What you are referring to is “kin selection” and you are correct from a biological standpoint that all of us, as animals, have a biological tendency toward kin selection – a preference for one’s own kind, family, etc.
        
        I also agree that there is nothing wrong (and everything right) with feeling and assuming greater responsibilities toward our immediate family than we do toward friends, and greater toward friends than strangers. However, just because we identify/empathize much more with family than with strangers, doesn’t mean that we would or should exploit or kill strangers for certain pleasures or preferences. The same goes for nonhuman beings.
        
        We should identify with nonhuman beings as innocents who were born into the world as a member of the species they happen to be through no fault of their own, just as a stranger was born into the world unknown to us. We should realize that those beings want to live a decent life just as we do and react like we would toward violence and the immediate threat of death. For the same reason we shouldn’t exploit and intentionally kill innocent humans for our preferences or pleasures, we shouldn’t exploit and intentionally kill innocent nonhumans. They have committed no crime worth imprisonment or the death penalty. They were only unfortunate enough to be born into a world dominated by more powerful beings.
        
        I’m going to be away from the Net for a few days, so if I don’t reply soon to any responses, that is why. I will follow up probably on Tuesday.
        
        - dan September 5, 2008 3:53PM
        
        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 physical basis for "ethics" argument
        
        But I think a point has been missed. The point is basicallay that I have my own "animal rights"--I do not really have any reason to base my actions on psychological constructs (ethics philosophies) that I do not see a physical basis for. Certainly it is true that kin selection does not require anyone to exploit or kill strangers--and It certainly doesn't argue that anyone SHOULD do that outside of the limit of extreme scarcity of food and such. And its' fair to say that probably anyone can identify/empathize with an animal in pain--weather they care to or not--anyone probably can. But to go to the point of making a lifestyle based around avoiding the killing a being of another species, which could be seen, as much or more, as a food source than something whose pain you basically fantasize that you are empathizing with is quite unnecessary. The type of caring that you insist people should have is an abstract psychological construct. Think about it--most other animals do not really have these kinds of fantasy worlds. They don't have any reason to claim that they really feel anything but their own experience. Anything else is a fanatsy, weather begotten by logic or lack of it. When an animal is hurt and you empathize with that animal, you are choosing to do so (you can't really feel it). I am claiming ultimately that I have the right to pick and choose these kinds of ethical fantasies--they are not even based in my physical, biological reality (things like kin selection are). Once again--I state--there is nothing at all unnatural about CHOOSING to devalue the pain of members of other species in the interest of my dinner--this is normal in the animal kingdom. I have the right as an animal to choose to eat other animals.
        
        - wrww September 11, 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.
        
        More comments in this thread
I Agree

I agree with Gary L. Francione! Groups like CCF are here to support factory farming & help the meat industry. They are least bothered about animal welfare or human rights. CCF runs from funds donated by fast food giants, slaughterhouses, tobacco industries, cattle ranchers, etc., they are here in support of them.

- Niranimal December 8, 2008 5:29PM

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.
Francione Uses Straw Man Argmts attacking CCF & Reason.

Mr. Francione claims that the Reason arguments and the CCF arguments are illogical.

I disagree, because I find his interpretations of the Reason and CCF arguments to be bogus. Reason does not argue that meat is cheaper to produce or that it generates less carbon to feed a carnivorous diet . Francione attempts to set up a straw man. Reason argues that the quality of life of the poor is improved by the availability of meat for their diet and that world Veganism would be tantamount to culture-cide for the Masai and probably for many other similar cultures in which the consumption of animal products is integral.

Mr. Francione claims that the fact that consumption of meat is pleasurable is not a logical or "good" argument. Would the same hold true if the argument was sex vs celibacy? If someone tried to argue that the whole world ought to be celibate, would it be irrational to argue in response that sex is a pleasurable and natural part of life?

I would like to hear a response by Mr. Francione to CCF's argument that "Plant-Eating Kills Plenty of Animals Too."
CCF argues that "According to [an Oregon State University] study, even a completely vegan U.S. diet would result in the deaths of 1.2 billion animals every year. That's more animals than would die if we were eating a meat-based diet skewed heavily toward ruminant animals (cows, calves, sheep, and lambs)."

Is that argument irrational, Mr. Francione? Or do do you merely find it inconvenient?

- Ynilp June 14, 2009 8:07PM

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.
Carnivores

Here is another argument I hear from people about why they must eat meat - they point to their front teeth and tell me that their teeth are pointy at the tips- this is of course irrefutable biological evidence they are in fact a carnivore! Not that their teeth even come close to what one would find in a vampire film. Somehow they forget they also have a full set of chewing teeth at the sides of their mouth, which no real carnivore has or needs. I really think they need to pay a visit to a vet and have a look at a model of what a dog's or cats' set of jaws is like. In fact- a cat's jaw has virtually no teeth on the sides- only two fangs at the front and tiny sharp teeth on each side of the mouth- because carnivores do not chew their food .

I also have people tell me that because baboons have sharp teeth it means humans are also carnivores. What is needed is a proper defintion of what a carnivore really is.

- sor666 August 31, 2009 10:43AM

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.

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