This content is inappropriate

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:

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 52 Comments on this Argument. See all 723 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

We Cannot Justify Eating Animal Products

- From Gary L Francione

Open Argument Go to this Argument

As yet unanswered

Prof Francione's cogent argument turns on the assumption that consuming flesh is not necessary. This assumption is sound given that even conservative dietitians argue that one can live an optimally healthy life free of meat and the reproductive excretes of nonhuman animals. Therefore, as Prof Francione argues, as these processes necessarily involve tremendous amounts of suffering, they cannot be justified unless we accept the premise that unnecessary suffering can be justified because of convenience, entertainment or gastronomical satisfaction.

However, accepting this premise begs the following question: Can we therefore justify suffering harm on human animals because of these reasons? If not, then we are either demonstrably arbitrary, which belies certain claims about justice we generally hold regarding "impartiality," or we are acting out of prejudice (i.e., X's suffering counts but Y's doesn't because Y belongs to a different group), which is ethically indefensible.

Go Vegan!

- Alex M August 9, 2008 8:17AM

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.
- Speciesism
  
  Joan Dunayer has written a good deal about this.
  
  - M3house August 15, 2008 1:16PM
  
  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.
- Reply to Alex M.
  
  The point is that we do not need a complicated theory to see the problem. We all agree--or say we agree--with the notion that it is wrong to impose suffering or death for reason of pleasure, amusement, or convenience. But that is precisely what we do when we consume animal products.
  
  I think you mean "raises" a question and not "begs" a question (unless I am misunderstanding your point). In any event, our relationship with nonhuman animals is characterized by our unjustifiable exclusion of nonhumans from our concepts of fundamental justice which, in turn, is related to certain speciesist aspects of our conceptualization of animal interests. Take a look at the Introduction to my most recent book, "Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation" (Columbia U. Press).
  
  Gary L. Francione
  Professor, Rutgers University
  
  - Gary L Francione August 16, 2008 10:45AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (3) 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 Mr. Francione
    
    I appreciate your clarification to my point. I, indeed, meant "raises" a question. Although "begs" seems appropriate as well: If the imposition of suffering can be justified for X, Y, and Z reasons then doesn't it follow that our fundamental premise against "unnecessary suffering" is resting on rather shaky ground – what else could we justify? (Maybe it is, "we say we agree"?) However, as you argue, this is related to speciesism whereby the suffering of nonhumans isn't considered morally relevant. My further point here is that this prejudice violates yet another premise of fundamental justice we hold regarding impartiality and the universality of "moral" rights.
    
    - Alex M August 21, 2008 2:35PM
    
    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.
- Can consensus of opinion be trusted?
  
  Alex said, "Prof Francione's cogent argument turns on the assumption that consuming flesh is not necessary. This assumption is sound given that even conservative dietitians argue that one can live an optimally healthy life free of meat and the reproductive excretes of nonhuman animals."
  
  It may be possible for some people to live an optimally healthy life free of meat and dairy. However, variations in biochemical and physiological makeup indicate that many shouldn't attempt to nourish themselves on a diet that totally excludes animal products.
  
  I know at least a half dozen people who experimented with the vegetarian approach but had to give it up because it damaged their health. One man showed me huge red blotches on his back that resulted from his experiment. Another told me he was cold all the time. Another, now in her mid twenties, recently added meat to a diet that already contained eggs.
  
  As far as dietitians are concerned, their education is shaped by the food manufacturing industry which employs about half of them. Food manufacturing involves mostly, wheat, corn, soybeans, and sugar. One estimate is that Americans obtain about 70% of their caloric intake from these four food crops.
  
  Corporate influence is also apparent in the recommendation to restrict saturated fat intake as much as possible. There is no solid experimental evidence suggesting saturated fats from animal products or other sources pose a health hazard. Quite the contrary. Recent research by Jeff Volek and others indicates that replacing vegetable oils with butter, lard, and beef tallow improves triglyceride and cholesterol blood values. Research into the effects of high sugar (especially fructose) intake by Peter Havel indicates that it is fructose, not saturated fat, that contributes the artery-clogging effect so prevalent in developed countries.
  
  Several times a year I have conversations with people who are dumbfounded that their grandparents lived long and were healthy and active to the end on a supposedly unhealthy diet that included copious amounts of bacon, eggs, and butter. And I recently clipped an article from our local paper about a 106 year old woman. I quote the last two sentences: As she fished from the dock, slowly retrieving a lure and hoping for a strike, she passed along her secret for a long life. "I eat bacon every morning," she said, "Crisp bacon."
  
  - David Brown September 6, 2008 6:15AM
  
  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.
  - regarding nutrition
    
    You said, "many shouldn't attempt to nourish themselves on a diet that totally excludes animal products."
    Unless someone does not have access to a wide variety of plant foods or that person refuses to eat a wide variety or can't eat a wide variety due to allergies, there is no reason anyone can't go vegan and enjoy optimal health.
    
    Any diet can lack nutrients. Whether you eat meat or not, you need to pay attention to your diet and eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods.
    
    In my experience, the people who have "failed" vegetarianism or veganism simply refused to eat a wide variety of plant foods and instead starved themselves or their children by consuming a very low variety and low calorie diet. I have also heard of people who simply couldn't figure out ways to modify a vegan diet for specific food allergies. Luckily, some people have persevered and have successfully adapted veganism to their allergies and conditions. They are paving the way for more people to do the same.
    
    This has more to do with our society's lack of nutritional understanding as well as the scientific community's preference for certain diets and certain nutritional studies than it has to with veganism.
    
    - ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 10:20AM
    
    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.
    - Generalizing from personal experience problematic.
      
      Hi Elaine,
      
      You are absolutely correct to say that people need to consume nutrient dense foods. Wide variety, however, may not be a requirement for optimum health. It's been reported that raw milk from pastured livestock has furnished adequate nutrition for certain individuals for periods ranging up to four decades. Google "The Milk Book."
      
      This is not to suggest that everyone is capable of metabolically processing such a boring diet. Variations in biochemical and physiological makeup make individualized nutrition a scientifically verifiable necessity.
      
      At the extremes are the obligatory vegans and obligatory omnivores. Most of us fall in the middle range. It would be an interesting experiment to try to adapt a group of healthy omnivore athletes to a high quality vegan diet to see how it affects physical performance.
      
      Responding to a comment of mine, Dr. Michael Eades said he finds that vegetarian athletes invariably improve when he has them add meat to their diets.
      
      On the negative ledger for vegetarians, Dr. Michael Eades reports that "... vegetarians have significantly higher rates of advanced glycation end products (AGE) than do omnivores." To read more about this, Google "Eades Vegetarians Age Faster."
      
      - David Brown September 9, 2008 5:55AM
      
      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.
      - Cow's milk is not healthy for most people
        
        Milk!?
        The vast majority of humans cannot drink cow's milk without negative repercussions.
        Cow's milk is for baby cows, not adult humans.
        
        - ElaineVigneault September 9, 2008 9:35AM
        
        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.
        
        Milk still benefits some.
        
        Elaine,
        
        By your logic, since many people cannot tolerate peanuts, no one should consume peanut butter. Likewise, since seeds are meant for reproduction, people ought not to use them for food.
        
        Realistically, nutrients are nutrients whatever their configuration. Where is the sense in restricting ones choices simply because not everyone can tolerate all the same foods?
        
        Part of the problem regarding modern methods of milk production has to do with pasteurization. My son-in-law is allergic to pasteurized dairy products but can drink raw "milk without negative repercussions."
        
        - David Brown September 9, 2008 11:03PM
        
        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.
        
        In reality...
        
        You said, "nutrients are nutrients whatever their configuration."
        
        Actually, that's not true. Nutrients interact with other nutrients and become more or less effective. Read The China Study by by Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II. Here's an excerpt: http://www.thechinastudy.com/PDFs/ChinaStudy_Excerpt.pdf
        
        - ElaineVigneault September 10, 2008 1:47PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Not true
        
        Sure there are plenty of people who are lactose intolerant. But the "vast majority"? That is not true, and I think you know it.
        
        - LagerHead June 17, 2009 7:57AM
        
        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.
      - athletes
        
        "he finds that vegetarian athletes invariably improve when he has them add meat to their diets."
        
        Athletes improve when you give them steroids, too. Doesn't make it a good idea.
        
        - ElaineVigneault September 10, 2008 1:45PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Good point
        
        Yea, let's compare eating meat , which is done by approximately half of the animal kingdom (totally random, made up statistic, but you get the point) to illegal drug use . I can see Goodwin's law coming true any minute now!
        
        - LagerHead June 17, 2009 8:00AM
        
        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.
non sequitur

"The notion that there are qualitative distinctions between humans and other animals ostensibly conflicts with the theory of evolution, which, at least according to Darwin , maintains that any such difference is a matter of degree and not of kind."

The conclusion that something can't be a difference of kind does not follow from the fact that there is a difference of degree. For example, take bill gates and a homeless person. Their difference in wealth is both a difference of degree and a difference of kind. One is poor and the other rich.

I recommend reading some douglas hofstadter.

- reckoner August 13, 2008 9:36PM

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.
- Non sequitur? Really?
  
  Using your reasoning, there is never a difference in kind. If I have $1 and you have $2, then the difference of degree is a difference in kind as well. You are a member of the class or set, "those with $2;" I am a member of the class or set "those with $1." This sort of game, although amusing for some, neglects the important point that Darwin made.
  
  Moreover, I stated in my posting: "We can, however, concede for purposes of argument that given that humans are, at least as far as we know, the only animals who use symbolic communication and whose conceptual structures are inextricably linked to language, it is most probably the case that there are significant differences between the minds of humans and the minds of nonhumans." The argument I subsequently presented explicitly did not rely on Darwin.
  
  And I have read Hofstadter.
  
  Gary L. Francione
  Professor, Rutgers University
  
  - Gary L Francione August 17, 2008 6:21AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - life is not set theory
    
    life is not set theory.
    
    Regarding hofstadter, did you read "I am a strange loop"? In it he uses a metaphor of dominoes to explain an algorithm. If you look at it from different levels of abstraction you get very different explanations for the "why" of the event. This is very similar to my example above. Abstraction explains why something can be a difference of degree and a difference of kind.
    
    "If I have $1 and you have $2, then the difference of degree is a difference in kind as well."
    
    No it's not, it's a difference of degree unless we are playing semantic games. But a difference of $1 and $1,000,000,000 is both a difference of degree and a difference of kind.
    
    - reckoner August 17, 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.
  - Qualitative and Quantitative difference
    
    Have you been reading Henri Bergson?
    
    - sor666 May 6, 2009 3:16AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - there is clear evidence of a continuity
    
    It now emerges that chimps also use symbolic communication. Most of the features of the human brain are merely extensions or further developments of those anatomical structures already present in even the simplest animals eg even insects have basal ganglia which humans also have.
    
    - sor666 September 2, 2009 10:08PM
    
    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.
- Qualities and Quantities- time and space
  
  Please do yourself a favour and read Henri Bergson: "Matter and Memory", "Creative Evolution" and if you care to understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative then these notions actually come form the mathematician G. Riemann of whom Bergson was well aware. Differences in quality imply sets (ie disjoint sets) which cannot be compared, differences in quantity imply sets which can be augmented with other sets. If one has more or less of something it implies the something is in a set of comprable elements. Otherwise we could not even speak of there being more or less of it.
  
  - sor666 September 2, 2009 10:05PM
  
  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.
we can justify eating animal products

"The production of meat and other animal products involves staggering levels of suffering and death."

I am a vegetarian and completely agree with this. However, I can not agree with the absolute nature of your conclusion. The fact that factory farming causes staggering levels of suffering does not mean that the production of animal products have to cause such suffering. I talking specifically about eggs, milk, cheese, etc.

I am from the south and have seen animals raised for such things that did not lead a life of suffering. I'm sure they had better lives than they would have had in the wild.

- reckoner August 13, 2008 10:16PM

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.
- By endorsing eggs and milk you endorse factory farming.
  
  I am in a position to eat one Bald Eagle egg and I am convinced by local scientists and other eco people that it will not harm the endangered species. Ok. So according to you its ok to eat it.
  
  Have you considered how this effects other human animals? Don't you think other people less well positioned will want one too? "If you can have one I can too. I am just as worthy."
  
  Problem is, I can't afford "happy meat" so I have to consume the dairy and eggs produced by the most common form. The form that has to feed the other 9 zillion people. How about the animal products in the rest of the groceries? The cookies, bread, pasta, jelly, sauces, (everything just about) chairs, cushions, clothes, purses, belts, shoes?
  
  - M3house August 15, 2008 1:31PM
  
  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.
  - your title is a non sequitur
    
    I'm trying very hard to understand your point of view, but I can't make sense of it. I abhor factory farming and would never do anything to promote it's use. However, the fact that factory farms exist does not mean that all animals that are raised for their byproducts lead lives of misery.
    
    You seem to be claiming that I should not eat eggs from chickens raised by my friend and treated as well as most pets because you can't afford eggs from anything other than a factory farm. This makes no sense to me. Is this really what you are claiming?
    
    - reckoner August 15, 2008 4:26PM
    
    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.
- Reply to Reckoner
  
  There is no way to produce animal products that does not involve some suffering. It may be less and it may be more, but there will be suffering.
  
  A comparison with animals in the wild is not logically relevant. Your argument is similar to the argument that it would be acceptable to bring humans into existence to serve as forced organ donors as long as we treated them better than other humans who have a rotten life in poverty.
  
  And even if there is no suffering, there will be death. That is inevitable and necessary. Killing raises a moral issue that is separate from inflicting suffering. If I come to your house tonight and kill you painlessly while you are sleeping, you may not suffer but I have still harmed you. Similarly, even if we do not inflict suffering on an animal, killing that animal is still harming that animal.
  
  Gary L. Francione
  Professor, Rutgers University
  
  - Gary L Francione August 16, 2008 10:19AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2) 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.
  - life requires suffering
    
    "There is no way to produce animal products that does not involve some suffering."
    
    There is no way to live that doesn't involve suffering. To require absolutely zero suffering would prevent life altogether.
    
    "And even if there is no suffering, there will be death."
    
    I didn't realize that laying an egg killed a chicken. If I wasn't clear I was referring to things that don't cause the death of the animal.
    
    - reckoner August 17, 2008 9:00PM
    
    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.
    - Laying an egg kills the chicken
      
      That's very funny. In fact, egg laying hens ARE slaughtered when they are "spent" - an industry term meaning they have reached the end of their useful -- to humans -- life. They are killed well before what their natural lifespan would be if we left them alone. Also, you may be unaware of what happens to baby chicks when they are hatched. The females are allowed to live, since they will become units of production. The male chicks, however are weeded out and killed. These baby chicks are gassed or crushed alive, because they cannot lay eggs are are therefore not useful -- again TO HUMANS -- for egg production.
      
      So yes reckoner, a hen laying an egg for human consumption most certainly leads to death, not only for that hen but any male offspring.
      
      - kelley August 18, 2008 2:51PM
      
      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.
      - the meaning of certainty
        
        "a hen laying an egg for human consumption most certainly leads to death"
        
        This is certainly false. You are right about factory farming, but if you had read my original comment you would have realized that I wasn't referring to factory farming. A friend of mine raises chickens for eggs and they are certainly not put to death. The fact that factory farms do something does not certainly mean that it has to be done that was or that everyone certainly does it that way.
        
        - reckoner August 18, 2008 3:09PM
        
        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.
        
        Believe what you will
        
        You can say it is false all you want, it won't change the fact that it is true. I suggest you widen your pool of evidence beyond "your friend's farm" and see how it is generally done.
        
        From the amount of arguments you've put on here that have a weak basis at best, I'm guessing you are either really trying very hard to find justification for consuming animal products, but are coming up short, or you're on the Yes side and are trying to derail the argument.
        
        I really do believe though in all sincerity that you haven't really done your homework.
        
        - kelley August 18, 2008 7:35PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        you fail to address my point
        
        I've made a sincere point and you haven't addressed it. I'm a vegetarian and I abhor factory farms. I agree with everything you say about them.
        
        However, factory farms are not a response to my question. Is it still morally wrong to eat eggs if a person raises their own chickens and treats them well? And if so why?
        
        - reckoner August 18, 2008 7:46PM
        
        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.
        
        More comments in this thread
- Can you justify eating animal products?
  
  Your statement reads "we can justify eating animal products", but you haven't argued why this is it.
  
  You have only said that you can "produce", or rather steal, some animal secretions without causing suffering and death.
  
  The question is, only suffering and death matter morally?
  What about liberty. What about self-determination. What about not being the property/slave of someone else?
  
  Is human slavery OK for you, as long as you don't cause any suffering to the human, and let him live his life until he dies of natural causes? People "from the south" probably raised this very argument, in favor of their ownership of humans. Maybe some of their slaves had better lives than they would have had in the "wild".
  Is human slavery OK then?
  
  If not, please explain to me, WHY?
  
  If you think it is, under those specific circumstances, how can you secure that every slave owner will follow your moral-slavery criteria?
  It's important to note that slave owners are the ones that value THEIR property, and that PROPERTY cannot have any significant protection or rights because of their very status.
  
  On a personal note, do you really just eat eggs, honey, milk and cheese "produced" under your "idyllic" scenario?
  
  BTW, love the "10,000 days" eye.
  
  Go Vegan!
  
  - Liberacion Igualdad September 1, 2008 9:19PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animals the moral equivalent of humans?

Prof Francione, You said, "The notion that there are qualitative distinctions between humans and other animals ostensibly conflicts with the theory of evolution, which, at least according to Darwin , maintains that any such difference is a matter of degree and not of kind."

I gather you believe the evolutionary hypothesis to be the correct explanation for the origins of life. If this is the case, then is it immoral for any animal of any sort to exploit other animals or cause them to suffer? I'm thinking of ants, ladybugs, and aphids. Ants obtain nectar from aphids and ladybugs eat aphids. Further up the evolutionary ladder it's a fact that chimpanzees consume meat. In fact, they will form groups to catch monkeys. At least a few people didn't want to believe Jane Goodall when she first observed this behavior but it's well documented at this juncture. So why is you say it is immoral for humans to hunt animals or raise them for food? Finally, if all life is the product of time and chance chemical reactions, what is the basis for morality of any sort?

- David Brown September 5, 2008 8:05PM

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.
- ethics and evolution
  
  You claimed, "it immoral for any animal of any sort to exploit other animals or cause them to suffer?"
  Evolutionarily speaking, ethics and philosophy have evolved as well.
  
  Our capacity to act morally is our impetus to act morally.
  The issue is not our capacity to use excuses and misguided logic.
  The issue is not animals' capacity or lack thereof to act morally.
  The issue is not animals actions at all.
  The issue is simple: We can act morally, therefore we should.
  
  - ElaineVigneault September 16, 2008 12:08PM
  
  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.
- basis of morality
  
  You asked, "what is the basis for morality?"
  
  The basis doesn't matter. You can believe in a higher power or not. You can believe in evolution or not. All you have to believe is in the ethical principle that we ought not to cause unnecessary harm to others.
  
  - ElaineVigneault September 16, 2008 12:10PM
  
  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.
  - Don't forget
    
    Morality is subjective. What's moral in one culture is not necessarily moral in another. So whose morals are right? My morals say it's OK to eat animals . You may disagree, but it doesn't make you right.
    
    - LagerHead June 17, 2009 8:12AM
    
    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.
- Choice
  
  Humans possess more free will than do chimps. This is why it is irrelevant what animals do to each other- they are not moral agents, but we are. This means we possess the freedom aniamls do not have and we can choose to use that freedom not to harm animals, whereas animals do not have the choice to not harm other animals.
  
  - sor666 September 2, 2009 10:12PM
  
  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.
  - How
    
    can you measure free will?
    
    - quantummechanik September 2, 2009 10:20PM
    
    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.
    - Free will is related to questions of being.
      
      No you cannot measure free will. But if you believe in a legal system where humans can be punished for their actions, but animals are exempt from accountability, then you acknowledge by extension that humans have free will and animals have less of free will. All beings have free will by virtue of being alive, but all are not alike in their access to choice. If you hold a gun to my head and tell me to kill someone, then I do not have the same free will as someone who does so voluntarily. This is why democracy in a society which is unequal is impossible.
      
      - sor666 September 3, 2009 12:18AM
      
      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.
      - Free will vs. Freedom from consequence
        
        If you believe humans are equal, then you must believe that humans have equal amounts of free will, regardless of situation. A man with a gun to his head and a man without a gun to his head have equal amounts of free will, but their options are unequally constrained by the consequences of their actions. If you believe that they actually have different amounts of free will, then you have to admit that, since everyone's situation is different, there are no two people with the same amount of free will. Thusly, people cannot be tried equally--all societies are unequal.
        
        - quantummechanik September 3, 2009 12:23AM
        
        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.
Eating meat is a necessity in nature

Eating meat is natural because as you might have forgotten humans are omnivores meaning we eat meat and vegetables. But what do I know what do tigers, lions, and bears all have in common they eat meat maybe you should try reasoning with them. Your argument against the idea that animals are 'inferior' is laughable. We eat animals because they are physically inferior to us not morally inferior. Next, I would like to address your argument against eating animals as a means of controlling population. Who controls the animals if humans don't. This brings me back to the tigers, lions, and bears.

- marcsilver March 15, 2009 7:57PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Other Arguments for the Justification of Consuming Animal Products

When questioning the moral validity of any product a person must observe the complete process of production-- look at every step taken (and their impacts on the environment aka. other living beings).

When I buy grass-fed beef from a rancher friend of mine in southern Arizona I eliminate the need for environmentally destructive interstate trucking to deliver my protein . My money is kept in the local economy . My rancher friend practices holistic management and intensive grazing. By keeping his 100 or so cows in a single herd which moves across his ranch semi-daily, over 90% of his land is being rested at any given time-- eliminating destructive overgrazing. Native perennial grasses which are scarce throughout our State Parks flourish on his land, every year plant density slightly increases-- reversing the prevalent trend of desertification.

This food is being produced from land not fit for arable crop production. By helping restore the dying perennial grasses his operation sequesters carbon . And to top it all off his cattle simply do not require large feed inputs. Cattle, after all, evolved to eat grasses and forage (which are inedible to humans)-- not grain. This new practice of feeding ruminants primarily grain (as you probably know) is ripe with unforeseen consequences (one of which is the creation of acid resistant ecoli bacteria)

If I weigh the impact of consuming imported soy for protein instead, my environmental footprint would be considerably larger. By eating imported soy I would be funding fleets of trucks, tractors, and field sprayers which tirelessly work, churning soil, oxidizing carbon, and killing and displacing countless thousands of wild animals . On my friend's ranch biodiversity has actually improved since he purchased the property and began producing food from it.

So what is morally unjustifiable about my situation? Yes, some cows die, but the overall carrying capacity of his land has increased. Death is unavoidable and is an inescapable part of life. This is how I morally justify eating local animal products, the death created in the process is counterbalanced by the increased carrying capacity of the land. This benefits many other wild animals who share the grassland with the cows unlike a monoculture soy plantation which is practically devoid of all non- domestic life.

- person1 March 23, 2009 8:04PM

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.
Eat animals because we think they are inferior?

Two points, they may have already been made.
1. As far as I know, all other species eat anything they can digest. We can digest meat .
2. We are much like other species.

Having said that, I do think that most people, in the US at least, could benefit physically and financially from less meat in their diet .

- acitizen May 3, 2009 12:14AM

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.
Huh?

This is just ridiculous. Why is it OK for other animals to eat meat , but not for humans? When we kill an animal it is quick and painless. When a lion or a crocodile kills an animal, it involves a chase, sometimes multiple take-downs, suffocation, drowning. Now those are truly inhumane ways to die. Maybe, since other animals think just like we do, only in lesser degrees, we should convert them all to vegetarians too. Because if they are so much like us, then we should force our morals on them too, right?
Remember, meat is MURDER. Tasty, tasty murder . Pass the steak sauce.

- LagerHead June 17, 2009 7:55AM

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.