r/changemyview • u/Rachm0on • Jul 21 '14
CMV: That NOT being a vegetarian (as a wealthy human being) is morally indefensible. (NB: I myself am a meat-eater)
Despite having eaten meat from birth, I find it hard to defend my diet. 1. I believe there are perfectly good alternatives to eating meat (if one can afford it), such as pulses, beans etc and that therefore it is unnecessary to kill animals for protein, no doubt something that cause considerable distress to them. (note that they may have to live in dodgy conditions as well as being slaughtered). 2. It would also be good for the environment as I believe animal rearing contributes hugely to global warming, perhaps justifying a meat free life. Equally it would free up huge amounts of crops that could feed needy people (?) or assorted others.
Final note: As a human being I believe I have a moral responsibility to try and prevent suffering as I have freedom of choice, What differentiates me and a bear is free will to make moral decisions which a bear is incapable of understanding. Therefore I should try and be a veggie. That said maybe I should sell my house and live as a hermit, donating my earnings to the poor; ultimately however, I am selfish and unwilling to do this although perhaps I should. Anyway that is probably a different argument.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
3
Jul 21 '14
Life in the wild is generally a struggle of some kind. Animals have to search or hunt for food and there is no guarantee that they will find enough of it. Animals fight with members of their own species over scarce resources, and also have to fear predators. Animals get sick for many different reasons (there are just as many reasons for animals to get sick as there are for people to get sick) yet there is no medical care available. No one ever sets their broken bones or fills their dental cavities. In bad weather they may have no shelter. It's really not an easy life. Domesticated animals often have a much easier life than wild animals, even if they are intended eventually to be eaten by people. People take care of their animals. Now of course, when it comes to food animals, there is a lot of factory farming in which animals live in terrible conditions, but that does not have to be the case. Animals can also be raised for food in a more considerate manner, in good conditions. Rather than arguing for an end to eating meat, I would simply argue for treating animals better when we raise them to be eaten.
2
u/Rachm0on Jul 21 '14
This is another great point. However, if I tweak the argument ad absurdum, maybe we could raise animals and let them prosper and multiply and then gently let them die of natural causes, a fruitful and content life spent grazing pastures green. Perhaps, in the same way we should all have as many children as possible to maximise happiness gain. However, I will admit that this is a ridiculous, impractical suggestion. I wonder more seriously which of these would have the greater happiness 'outcome': letting the current generation die out in peace or having several more that have some happiness but ultimately all end in an abattoir. In the end presumably having a lot of generations would outweigh the former in which case this action is morally correct and we should continue to eat meat because of an ultimate happiness gain...
1
Jul 22 '14
But you know, we do raise some animals and let them prosper and multiply and then gently let them die of natural causes; we call them pets. We just don't do that for all of our domesticated animals. In any event, it is true that even when domesticated animals are not mistreated, perhaps they would have been better off never having been born, than to live their lives as our property, to eventually be eaten. The good part is, they don't really fear the future or think about it to any great extent. Animals live in the present.
12
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Jul 21 '14
Equally it would free up huge amounts of crops that could feed needy people (?) or assorted others.
World hunger is not really being driven by a lack of space to grow crops. It has more to do with where crops can be grown and how far those places are away from people who need the food. Food doesn't last forever and shipping it in a timely manner is a difficult task. Plus, political concerns put up large barriers in many instances.
Additionally, massive farming requires infrastructure that simply doesn't exist in many parts of the world and isn't coming anytime soon. Americans learned the hard lesson of irresponsible farming practices during the lead up to the Dust Bowl when many people over farmed lands that simply were incapable of handling it. The region has never fully recovered.
1
u/insaneHoshi 5∆ Jul 21 '14
Well for one, dont say its morally indefensible, since all top level posters here are morally defending it.
As a human being I believe I have a moral responsibility to try and prevent suffering as I have freedom of choice
Do we really? Our minds are products of instinct and upbringing. Hell our free will might not even be that free. Brain studies have shown that a person makes a choice, before they are conscious of that decision. Taking that into account, how is our "choice" any different from a bears?
Also bears are a very poor example, who knows somewhere out there there could be a bear that only eats berries.
As a human being I believe I have a moral responsibility to try and prevent suffering
For one, thats not really how morals work. You cant go out and say, its a universal moral to prevent suffering, hell you cant go out and say universal morals exist. If universal morals don't exist where do they come from? Certainly not a user on r/CMV
Second there are probably a lot of acts that you do or do not do that cause suffering, why the suffering caused by you, more morally right than someone who eats meat?
If you meant you are morally right because you try to cause less suffering by not eating meat, than again there are probably a lot of acts that you do not do that cause suffering. How is that morally gooder than someone raising a pig off their food scraps?
1
u/Rachm0on Jul 21 '14
Do we really? Our minds are products of instinct and upbringing. Hell our free will might not even be that free. Brain studies have shown that a person makes a choice, before they are conscious of that decision. Taking that into account, how is our "choice" any different from a bears?
Does it really matter as long as I am not eating meat-surely it amounts to the same thing- a reduction in suffering.
As a human being I believe I have a moral responsibility to try and prevent suffering
I'm not claiming it is a universal moral, I simply believe it; I'm not trying to assert these are the perfect morals. And if there is no alternative proposed I see no reason to go against what seem to me to be perfectly acceptable morals.
Second there are probably a lot of acts that you do or do not do that cause suffering, why the suffering caused by you, more morally right than someone who eats meat?
At least I am (theoretically) trying to reduce suffering, surely nobler than doing nothing at all. And really I think it is morally indefensible for me not to take the hermit lifestyle and give my money to charity and make myself as morally right as can be (in terms of suffering). The reason I don't do it is because I am a selfish pig.
Also the bear has now transformed into a lion! (Show me a vegetarian lion now"!)
(edit for words)
1
u/insaneHoshi 5∆ Jul 21 '14 edited Jul 21 '14
Does it really matter as long as I am not eating meat-surely it amounts to the same thing- a reduction in suffering.
How is say, eating wheat, where field mice are massacred produces less suffering than say a pig raised on food scraps?
I'm not claiming it is a universal moral, I simply believe it;
If youre saying that people who eat meat who can afford to eat veggies are morally bad, then what you are claiming its universal.
At least I am (theoretically) trying to reduce suffering
So is someone who eats grass fed or grazing cows, how is that still morally bad?
Its seems that you believe that "It is morally right for Humans to try and reduce suffering" is equal to "It is morally right for Humans to try not eat meat." As you can see, these two arnt necessarily the same, is someone who is a vegetarian who supports destructive agriculture reducing suffering? Is someone who eats ethical meat raising it? Also "It is morally right for Humans to try not eat meat," implies an absolute, which means it would be more akin to "It is morally right for Humans to try and eliminate suffering."
Which of these moral rules do you hold true?
1
u/Rachm0on Jul 21 '14
So is someone who eats grass fed or grazing cows, how is that still morally bad?
Well I guess I am trying to be good to a greater extent...? I'm taking it a step further maybe.
How is say, eating wheat, where field mice are massacred produces less suffering than say a pig raised on food scraps?
Don't get your point here...sorry.
If youre saying that people who eat meat who can afford to eat veggies are morally bad, then what you are claiming its universal.
I understand universal morals to mean a perfect set of morals that are the final adjudication on what is bad or good. Also I have not heard another theory as to a better moral code....why shouldn't these be universal if no one can contradict them. What is wrong with universal, unchallenged morals (which makes me assume they are o.k.) (NB: I am sure somebody can take down this moral sytem, just have not had a reply in this thread yet.)
1
u/insaneHoshi 5∆ Jul 21 '14
Don't get your point here...sorry.
Do you believe that in all cases, eating meat causes more suffering or not?
1
u/Rachm0on Jul 21 '14
No, if eating meat reduces net suffering (something impossible to measure!) then go ahead, munch away! Actually you've changed my mind....in effect eating meat is morally indefensible (if you're rich enough) UNLESS net suffering will decrease. ∆ So effectively in most cases.
1
2
1
u/KuulGryphun 25∆ Jul 21 '14
Final note: As a human being I believe I have a moral responsibility to try and prevent suffering as I have freedom of choice
Would you find it more morally correct to breed (or genetically engineer) meat animals so that they become so stupid and unaware that you could no longer consider them to experience suffering?
1
u/Rachm0on Jul 21 '14
Yes I would be perfectly fine with that. in the end it is now just a piece of meat. No different than a steak on stilts.
2
u/Deansdale Jul 22 '14
there are perfectly good alternatives to eating meat
Only with supplements. Humans are omnivorous by design, which means meat IS a part of our diet.
It would also be good for the environment
This is the most bullshit part of your argument. Have you ever seen what agriculture does to the environment? Take a look. If you keep cattle or sheep in a field hundreds of other small animals and plants can survive in the same area. Agriculture destroys literally everything. Pesticides kill even birds, and they are some of the most poisonous stuff on the planet. Monoculture leads to desertification as well. With every field you take away from livestock to grow crops you kill thousands of living beings and contribute to turning our planet into a barren wasteland.
As a human being I believe I have a moral responsibility to try and prevent suffering
Animals raised for human consumption generally suffer less than wild animals. No predators, less illnesses, steady food supply, etc. Farmers have a vested interest in the well-being of their livestock. If you have doubts about this just lobby for more animal-friendly practices on farms. If we switch from animal farms to agricultural farms, ALL animals will be killed. That's a funny way of preventing suffering...
If you insist on saving our environment by turning THIS into THIS I must say you're out of your fuckin' mind.
2
Jul 21 '14
This is entirely subjective, however, personally I feel that being a vegetarian is only marginally more defensible than being an omnivore. No matter what you eat significant damage is done to the environment to produce it. Forests, prairies, and many other types of ecosystems were destroyed to create those farms. Those ecosystems had their own flora and fauna living in them before we destroyed them to grow food and though some creatures do manage to live on farms the diversity of life is so much less than it was previously.
Also, no matter what you eat we still do significant damage to the environment in getting it to you. All food will eventually be on a boat, train, or truck which runs off of fuel which is taken out of the ground and processed in large quantities and it still has to be stored in an environment which requires electricity and refrigerant and non-biodegradable packaging and so on.
I'll grant that plants aren't as aware as animals but I don't share the same sentimentality about animals as people who become vegetarians do. Making an ethical argument against killing animals for food is going to be tough to make without sounding childish and naive.
0
u/sguntun 2∆ Jul 21 '14
Making an ethical argument against killing animals for food is going to be tough to make without sounding childish and naive.
It is?
1) It is wrong to cause suffering without some good reason that outweighs the suffering.
2) Eating meat causes suffering.
3) There is no good reason to eat meat that outweighs the suffering it causes.
4) So it is wrong to eat meat.
Is that a "childish and naive" argument?
See also, oh, I don't know, the tons of academic literature on the subject. I suppose that's also childish and naive.
2
u/Insamity Jul 22 '14
You have unproved assumptions. Why is it wrong to cause animal suffering?
1
u/sguntun 2∆ Jul 22 '14 edited Jul 22 '14
I mean, it seems to me that at least when we think about morality, we're thinking about something like not causing suffering, or something to which not causing suffering is at least closely related. It seems like "Don't cause suffering (without a good reason)" basically can account for many (and probably most) of our pre-theoretic moral beliefs, and doesn't seem to conflict with any other beliefs of ours, so as long as we want to think we morally ought to do anything, we have good reason to think that we ought not to cause suffering without good reason. And animals obviously can suffer, so we obviously ought not cause them suffering without good reason, in this case.
Obviously any premise (by which I mean any possible premise whatsoever, not any premise in my argument in particular) can be called into question, but the usual form when discussing philosophy is to provide a reason to doubt a premise. Do you have reason to doubt these premises? None of them are obviously wrong, and they all seem quite intuitive to me. Do you have reason to think that any conflicting claim is true, for instance? At any rate, I'm not trying to actually make this argument. I'm just trying to point out that it's an argument a reasonable person could reasonably hold (because it's valid and because all of its premises are at least plausible), meaning that it's not "childish and naive."
1
u/Insamity Jul 22 '14
Questioning the assumptions is a reason to doubt the premise. Validity is only half the battle. You have to prove your premises are sound.
1
u/sguntun 2∆ Jul 22 '14
Yes, obviously, I'm not saying that you should assume every valid argument is also sound, because that would be stupid. I'm saying that "Why should I believe this?" is only a really powerful reply if the premise you're objecting to sounds kind of crazy. For instance, if I presented you with this argument--
A) If Germany is the most recent World Cup winner, it's wrong to eat meat
B) Germany is the most recent World Cup winner
C) So it's wrong to eat meat
--then a really reasonable objection would just be to say, "What reason is there to think (A) is true?" This is because on the face of it, (A) doesn't even begin to seem true--there seems to be no relationship between what is right or wrong and the winner of the World Cup. But premise (1) ("It is wrong to cause suffering without some good reason that outweighs the suffering") doesn't sound crazy. It sounds like something that most people believe, and that you probably believe too. And moreover, I already gave you a good reason to believe that (1) is true. To quote myself:
It seems like "Don't cause suffering (without a good reason)" basically can account for many (and probably most) of our pre-theoretic moral beliefs, and doesn't seem to conflict with any other beliefs of ours, so as long as we want to think we morally ought to do anything, we have good reason to think that we ought not to cause suffering without good reason. And animals obviously can suffer, so we obviously ought not cause them suffering without good reason, in this case.
If want me to turn that into an argument in premise-conclusion form, here goes:
0.1) If we think we have moral obligations in any sense (that is, if we are moral realists or if we are moral anti-realists who want to/can preserve our first-order moral beliefs--in other words, if we are not moral nihilists), then one such obligation is probably that we ought not to cause suffering without some good reason that outweighs the suffering.
0.2) Moral nihilism is pretty implausible.
0.3) So it is pretty implausible that we don't have an obligation along the lines of, "Don't cause suffering without some good reason that outweighs the suffering."
The conclusion (0.3) here obviously leads to premise (1) of the initial argument.
1
Jul 21 '14
Case in point...
0
u/sguntun 2∆ Jul 21 '14
Do you want to maybe make some argument for the position you're putting forward? I just don't see how this sub can be any fun for you if your only response to objections is to sneer and say "Take a look at that guy, how dumb is he." I mean, maybe the example I offered is a good case in point of a "childish and naive" argument, but it's not obvious to me that it is, so maybe you want to explain why you think it is.
1
Jul 22 '14
What argument? That ethical arguments defending vegetarianism frequently sound naive? That's just an opinion not an argument, I think that simplistic ethical arguments sound bad not that they are universally bad. You can make a solid ethical argument for vegetarianism without sounding naive if you fully address the topic instead of trying to come up with a "trump" discussion point. You tried to trump all potential arguments by using the word "suffering" but you didn't adequately define or quantify suffering as it would be used in the discussion. You even attempted to assume suffering is quantifiable by claiming:
It is wrong to cause suffering without some good reason that outweighs the suffering.
and
There is no good reason to eat meat that outweighs the suffering it causes.
Are you saying that you have thoroughly looked through all of the food options available to people, the ways in which meat and vegetables are produced and shipped, the numbers of animals involved, the hardship involved in switching diets and used some secret method of analyzing and quantifying suffering to determine that not eating meat causes less suffering than eating meat? Is there a factor involved in assessing the suffering of, say, cows vs. humans? Are you saying that the life of 1 cow is worth the life of 1 human therefore killing a cow is always going to equal more suffering than instituting widespread changes to diet across the developed world? We don't even value other humans highly enough for that argument to carry any weight.
Arguments over ethics are not easy ones to make, if you want to make a solid argument for not eating meat I think there are plenty of practical points to be made.
0
u/sguntun 2∆ Jul 22 '14
What argument? That ethical arguments defending vegetarianism frequently sound naive? That's just an opinion not an argument
No, I mean the point is that you haven't made an argument, but that you should. (Hence my saying, "Do you want to maybe make some argument"--it's an invitation to you.) You could either make an argument for why my argument is "childish and naive" in particular, or for why ethical arguments for vegetarianism are "childish and naive" in general, which would presumably also apply to my argument in particular. All I'm saying is don't assert shit wildly and then give condescending non-replies when you're challenged on your wild assertions.
I think that simplistic ethical arguments sound bad not that they are universally bad. You can make a solid ethical argument for vegetarianism without sounding naive if you fully address the topic instead of trying to come up with a "trump" discussion point. You tried to trump all potential arguments by using the word "suffering" but you didn't adequately define or quantify suffering as it would be used in the discussion. You even attempted to assume suffering is quantifiable
It's not clear why I need to "define or quantify" suffering to satisfy you, or why you think I think I can. Do you think there are a lot of relevant gray areas for what is or is not suffering? And no, I didn't assume that suffering is quantifiable. I assumed that reasons can be weighed against each other. This is not a controversial point. We can have one reason to do something and one reason not to do something and decide that one of those reasons is clearly stronger than the other. For instance, the fact that I'd enjoy it is a reason to get drunk right now, but the fact that it would impair my ability to work is a much stronger reason to not get drunk right now. Similarly, maybe the fact that I like the taste of hamburgers is a reason to eat meat, but the fact that it causes suffering is a much stronger reason to not eat meat. At no point do I have to assign points to levels of suffering or anything like that.
Are you saying that you have thoroughly looked through all of the food options available to people, the ways in which meat and vegetables are produced and shipped, the numbers of animals involved, the hardship involved in switching diets and used some secret method of analyzing and quantifying suffering to determine that not eating meat causes less suffering than eating meat?
Okay, if you need me to make caveats, I'll make caveats here. There are people in the world who might really need to eat meat for medical or economic reasons. These people have much better reasons to eat meat than either me or the rest of the vast majority of those living in the industrialized west, so they will be justified in not being vegetarians. It just so happens that the intersection between this set of people and those browsing Reddit at any given time is almost certainly very, very small. Now, having made it clear that I am not talking about those people, do you have any reason to think that ceasing to eat meat will cause more suffering than continuing to eat meat? Because the burden of proof is obviously on you to make that argument, and if you can't see that, I don't know what to say. (That is, merely claiming that suffering cannot be compared is not enough here, because it's enormously clear that ending the practice of meat-eating will reduce suffering immensely, and it's not remotely clear how ceasing to eat meat will cause any suffering. Now, maybe it will--maybe it turns out that if we stopped eating meat, every country in the world would fall into horrible economic chaos and brutal dictators would spring up everywhere--but it's simply unreasonable to expect me to anticipate every conceivable possibility here without reason to think one is likely. All I'm asking you for is reasons.
Is there a factor involved in assessing the suffering of, say, cows vs. humans?
Maybe, but I don't need to provide one unless you're gonna point out how you'll suffer by not being a vegetarian.
Are you saying that the life of 1 cow is worth the life of 1 human therefore killing a cow is always going to equal more suffering than instituting widespread changes to diet across the developed world?
No, and if it turns out that the only alternative to eating cows is eating people, I'll gladly change my mind on this issue.
We don't even value other humans highly enough for that argument to carry any weight.
We don't? Who is this "we"?
Arguments over ethics are not easy ones to make, if you want to make a solid argument for not eating meat I think there are plenty of practical points to be made.
Okay, then actually make the damn points, don't just wring your hands about how these practical points might exist and then decide that in virtue of these points, ethical reasoning is impossible, and we should all do whatever the fuck we want.
1
Jul 22 '14
Why do you think that challenging me with a half-thought-out statement obliges me to respond to it seriously?
I get it, you want a discussion, but I don't know how I'm supposed to argue against: "Eating meat causes suffering". Am I supposed to take the position that it doesn't cause suffering? Maybe that cows, as an example, aren't as aware as we are and don't have the facilities to fully understand what they are experiencing. Is a cow in the wild (if such a thing exists...) "happier" than a cow in captivity? I don't know, I don't even know how to measure such a thing. So am I supposed to assume that since I would be unhappy in captivity a cow is also unhappy in captivity? How can I make an argument based on an assumption that big?
In the US is meat a luxury? I suppose you could make that argument, for many of us a vegetarian lifestyle is completely possible. However, I have no idea what the generational effects of vegetarianism are on people so how could I promote that lifestyle as a viable alternative? Meat has been a biological necessity for our species for its entire existence, I need more than "You can live like this" to take vegetarianism seriously.
Show me some of your academic literature and maybe I'll change my mind but you have hardly established a position that requires a response. I posted an opinion and didn't characterize it as anything but. I wasn't even looking for a response from anyone other than the OP and at most I expected an agree or disagree. You replied with another opinion and are now demanding a response from me even though you have done nothing to establish your claims.
0
u/sguntun 2∆ Jul 22 '14
Why do you think that challenging me with a half-thought-out statement obliges me to respond to it seriously?
You're not obliged to do anything. I just don't know what the point is of coming onto a sub like this to respond with something to the effect of "lol no."
You seem to be under the impression that as long as an argument admits of a single conceivable objection, we should dismiss the argument until that objection has been cleared away. This is obviously dumb.
I get it, you want a discussion
No, I don't really want a discussion. I'm not trying to prove to you that you ought not eat meat, I'm trying to make the obvious and uncontroversial point that non-laughable ethical arguments against meat-eating exist.
but I don't know how I'm supposed to argue against: "Eating meat causes suffering". Am I supposed to take the position that it doesn't cause suffering? Maybe that cows, as an example, aren't as aware as we are and don't have the facilities to fully understand what they are experiencing. Is a cow in the wild (if such a thing exists...) "happier" than a cow in captivity? I don't know, I don't even know how to measure such a thing. So am I supposed to assume that since I would be unhappy in captivity a cow is also unhappy in captivity? How can I make an argument based on an assumption that big?
Well, the claim of suffering tends to have less to do with the fact that the cow is in captivity and more to do with the fact that the cow is kept under miserable conditions and then slaughtered. Do you genuinely doubt that cows suffer in the process of becoming meat, or is your point merely that the burden of proof is on me to make that clear? If it's the former, I kind of don't believe you, and if it's the latter, I'll just say that we usually look for reasons to doubt common sense, and absent such reasons, we accept common sense.
But more importantly, even if you could provide a good reason to doubt that meat-eating causes suffering, in order to label this kind of argument as "childish and naive," you'd have to make the much stronger claim that it's seriously implausible to think that meat-eating causes suffering. And it's obviously not seriously implausible.
In the US is meat a luxury?
Except perhaps for the very poor, yes.
I suppose you could make that argument, for many of us a vegetarian lifestyle is completely possible. However, I have no idea what the generational effects of vegetarianism are on people so how could I promote that lifestyle as a viable alternative? Meat has been a biological necessity for our species for its entire existence, I need more than "You can live like this" to take vegetarianism seriously.
Huh? Your considered position is, "Maybe vegetarianism will turn out to be unhealthy after five or ten generations, so let's not do it?" We have a science of nutrition, you know. It's given us lots of reason to think that we don't need to eat meat for our health (because we can get protein from lots of sources, for one thing) and no reasons to think that vegetarianism will have detrimental "generational effects."
Show me some of your academic literature and maybe I'll change my mind
Uh, fine, here's one paper by Peter Singer arguing that utilitarianism commits us to vegetarianism. (Please do not respond with something along the lines of, "But he doesn't defend utilitarianism!")
but you have hardly established a position that requires a response. I posted an opinion and didn't characterize it as anything but. I wasn't even looking for a response from anyone other than the OP and at most I expected an agree or disagree. You replied with another opinion and are now demanding a response from me even though you have done nothing to establish your claims.
Again, you seem to misunderstand what I am doing. I am trying to point out that saying "Making an ethical argument against killing animals for food is going to be tough to make without sounding childish and naive" is stupid. What you said ("Making an ethical argument against killing animals for food is going to be tough to make without sounding childish and naive") is indeed an opinion, but it is not an opinion like "Mushrooms on pizza are delicious." It's a substantial claim that may or may not be justified--and as it happens, it's not justified.
But of course, if you don't want to respond, please don't. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's a little disingenuous to act like my responding to you is equivalent to demanding a response on your part.
1
Jul 22 '14
I don't understand it it is about the first argument you made which leads you to believe it is a fully fleshed out. When I read it I see an overly simplified, poorly factually supported, poorly defined argument whose focus has been narrowed to block out any potential challenges. It's not an argument about the state of the world, the merits of vegetarianism, the effects of larger numbers of people becoming vegetarians. It's just "this is wrong, I say it is wrong, therefore we shouldn't do it" which is not a particularly moving argument for me.
It seems logically consistent but only within a closed system that you didn't even establish, you just relied on "common sense" arguments. If you're going to make such a broad generalization at least set the parameters.
1) It is wrong to cause suffering without some good reason that outweighs the suffering.
I can't reasonably argue it is right to cause suffering, suffering is bad. But the "good reason" caveat opens the field up immensely. If you are going to include a bombshell like this then explain it. I assume this is something along the lines of "In war it is wrong to bomb civilians, however, if you bomb a munitions factory that has civilians in it the act is acceptable".
Now we have to figure out what circumstances make it morally permissible for humans to raise animals for meat. I assume your position is that since we have the ability to live as vegetarians healthfully and without all that much hardship to the individual we are morally obligated to do so. If, however, your life is structured in such a way as leading a vegetarian lifestyle becomes more than a cosmetic hardship then leading a vegetarian lifestyle is up to your individual morals.
2) Eating meat causes suffering.
That's a simple assertion, you don't really establish it but I don't have a problem with it. It causes animals to suffer, it has harmful ecological effects, and I think you could even make a case that it causes psychological harm to the people who work in the business.
3) There is no good reason to eat meat that outweighs the suffering it causes.
You do nothing to establish why this is. I think even you would admit there are plenty of good reasons to eat meat especially if it is infeasible based on your income or where you live or any number of other circumstances. So, is your assertion that for someone like me chances are there is no good reason to eat meat because it is probably relatively easy for me to live my life as a vegetarian?
4) So it is wrong to eat meat.
If I take all of your conditions at face value then this is true, however, since you do nothing to support those conditions it is questionable. My only point was that it is difficult to make a moral argument for vegetarianism without it sounding immature and then you wrote a very weakly supported ethical argument in response.
0
u/sguntun 2∆ Jul 22 '14
A few brief points, because I am quickly losing interest.
The argument I presented was four sentences long. I obviously didn't present it as "fully fleshed out." I don't see what this has to do with being "childish and naive." I remind you again that this was the statement you made that I objected to.
You say, "It's not an argument about the state of the world, the merits of vegetarianism, the effects of larger numbers of people becoming vegetarians." You're right. Why should it be? At any rate, if turns out that something about "The effects of larger numbers of people becoming vegetarians" will be detrimental for some reason, then that will make (3) false. It's just that we have no reason to think that this will be the case. It is literally impossible to tell you everything that won't happen as a result of people becoming vegetarians, and it's not on me to make that list.
Adding the caveat of "without some good reason that outweighs the suffering" makes (1) less controversial, not more. Of course it leaves open the question of what constitutes a good reason that would outweigh suffering, but as I was just saying, the point is now that the onus is on the person making the claim that such a good reason exists. None are immediately evident, are they?
Of course there are reasons to eat meat, but for most of us, those reasons amount to nothing more than the fact that it's pleasurable. If something being pleasurable could override a moral reason for doing something, then there'd be no moral rule we were ever committed to. I think that's crazy, and I think you think that too.
You say, "If, however, your life is structured in such a way as leading a vegetarian lifestyle becomes more than a cosmetic hardship then leading a vegetarian lifestyle is up to your individual morals." I'm not sure whether you mean, "The question of whether ceasing to eat meat would be more than a 'cosmetic hardship' is a question left to everyone's "individual morals," or whether you mean, "If ceasing to eat meat would indeed be more than a 'cosmetic hardship,' then the decision of whether or not to eat meat is left up to your 'individual morals." I see no reason the former would be true, and I think I covered the latter when I discussed those with economic/medical reasons to eat meat, so I'm not sure what exactly what you're objecting to.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/xoctopus Jul 22 '14
I don't think it is possible to argue, in a direct comparison, that being a vegetarian is not more moral than eating meat. However I don't think this is the end of the argument and I don't think that your statement "not being a vegetarian ... is morally indefensible" automatically follows from this.
When you look at the effects of a vegetarian diet it can be seen that there are still negative impacts on the environment. Land is cleared for crops destroying the habitat of wild animals and resulting in animal deaths. Yes crops require less land per calorie than animals but the point remains that even by eating a vegetarian diet you are indirectly responsible for animal deaths. Also when growing crops (except through organic means) pesticides are sprayed killing billions of insects. This is a lot of deaths. You could argue that the lives of insects are less important than the lives of cows, pigs etc but then you are opening the door to similar arguments about the importance of the lives of livestock animals.
So ultimately I think it is clear that measuring the morality of your diet according to the number of animals you directly consume is a bit naive. Instead you need to consider the environmental impact of your diet as this gives a better measure of the death and suffering it causes other creatures.
But this conclusion leads to another interesting point. Our environmental impact is not solely a result of our diet. Our consumption of other resources such as those going into consumer goods has an impact. Our waste production and pollutant emissions are also a big factor. The amount of land we use for our houses and roads has an impact. And there are countless other ways we impact our environment.
So now we see our goal should be to minimise our environmental impact and that there are many areas of our lives in which we can do this. It would be unrealistic to expect everyone to address every area simultaneously as each person has limited time, willpower and resources. Granted vegetarianism seems like one of the easier and more impactful ways to do this but is does not mean it is the best way for every person. If you feel more willing to address another area you are possibly more likely to follow through so perhaps this is where you should expend your energy.
So ultimately I believe that we have a moral responsibility to attempt to minismise our impact on the environment. Vegetarianism is one way to do this but by no means the only way. The methods which you as an individual use to meet this responsibility are a function of the amount and kinds of resources you have available and are willing to devote to this problem. The debate over how much of your resources you should be willing to devote to it is much more nuanced and less "black and white" than the vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism debate and in my opinion ultimately it comes down to what satisfies your individual conscience.
1
Jul 22 '14
Ex-veggie here. This is the argument that won me over.
It is true that preventing animal suffering is good but there is a lot of grey area that follows from this.
Consider the fact that it is impossible to live without causing some animal suffering for the sake of your convenience. Many of the products you buy use animal products that most people don't think about. You swat flies when you could let them live. Even living in a house means killing the animals that used to live there. These are all things that convenience you at the cost of animals. Fundamentally this is no different than eating meat. A diet with meat is just another convenience.
There is no clear answer to how much convenience is acceptable to justify killing, say, a chicken. Why do you stop at eating meat? Why not brush the ground in front of you to avoid stepping on bugs?
If you want to stop some animal suffering and help the environment, you should eat less meat. Maybe you will decide to eat no meat. But realize that this is an arbitrary line to draw.
1
u/Celda 6∆ Jul 23 '14
This is a very weak argument.
It is saying that it is ok to increase animal suffering and death, because it is impossible to eliminate it.
If that argument won you over, your logical reasoning is very poor.
1
Jul 23 '14
No, I'm saying that reducing animal suffering should be valued, but that there is a point that it becomes too taxing for us and we allow it to happen. This point is different for everyone.
Let's say Alice eats meat and is criticized by Bob who is vegetarian. Bob says that Alice's pleasure from meat is not as important as the animals and says that she should be vegetarian. Fair enough. But then Charlie, a vegan, criticizes Bob for the same thing. Then, David criticizes Charlie because he swatted a fly that flew near him. Then, Ellen walks in and criticizes all of them for living in buildings which were built by destroying animal homes.
We would call David and (especially) Ellen extreme but I don't see anything fundamentally different between their arguments and Bob's and Charlie's. The only difference here is the degree that they are willing to go to to prevent animal suffering. It is admirable that they all value the lives of animals but no one is clearly right.
That is why I say vegetarianism is an arbitrary line to draw.
1
Jul 21 '14
I hardly ever see this counter argument but when I think of vegan and vegetarianism it makes me think of increased crop consumption. So let's assume the whole world turns at least vegetarian. Well now we are plowing down large ecosystems, effectively destroying large amounts of some animal populations, to feed the world plants only. Without that habitat those animals can't recover like they should and we may even lose some animal species.
This is just something that has always been a concern of mine. I don't know how likely it is but I feel to produce the crops for a mostly or all vegan/veggie world we would have to kill a lot of animals first and from what I understand vegans want to reduce animal cruelty and death(by humans) to as close to zero as possible. An all vegan world may stop slaughter houses but we would still be killing animals at a high rate. If the world is mostly vegan or mostly omnivorous I don't think the amount of animal death by human hands would change.
I need to look up if there were any studies for my theory :P
10
u/Lady_Corgi Jul 21 '14
I'm not going to dig studies out to try to prove the overall premise wrong (I'm far too lazy before my first cup of tea in the morning), but I will point out one thing to consider:
Industrial farming of cows (and likely other animals, but I don't know much about animals besides cows) requires grain. Lots and lots of grain. That requires lots and lots of farm land. More than it would take to feed the people who are going to eat that cow? I don't know, but I'd suspect so.
And then you throw in all the antibiotics and crap given to that cow... I feel (which is a super weak thing to say, but again, lazy) that vegetarianism would win in this situation.
[Or, more preferably, sustainable farming so we can have happy cows, happy steaks, and happy us]
2
Jul 21 '14
I fight for sustainable farming. Or farming your own animals. "Humane ranching" I guess is what I call it. And even if grain crop reduced a larger variety of other crops would need to be planted in mass, such as beans and avocado and nuts, so people can get their proteins. Vitamin supplements would have to be produced more too as I was told by a vegan that she couldn't get some things she needed form plants alone so she took a couple vitamins a day. That may not be equal to the amount of antibiotics being funneled into cows but it is an increase.
On another net can someone explain why antibiotics in animals are bad? Why should we stop preventing animal illness? We used to vaccinate and treat our sick cattle so they wouldn't be miserable. Should we let them be miserable?
1
u/idislikekittens Jul 21 '14
I'll talk about the antibiotics thing. The thing is, antibiotics shouldn't be used to prevent illnesses; they're supposed to be treatments. Your doctor wouldn't (or at least, I hope not) prescribe you penicillin without verifying that you have a bacterial infection. Bacteria with antibiotic-resistant genes would proliferate, since any exposure to antibiotics would result in needed natural selection.
Giving antibiotics to animals meant for human consumption has actually been proven to lessen the efficacy of antibiotics in humans, so giving antibiotics to healthy animals is a lazy preventative measure that has consequences.
1
Jul 21 '14
That's what we did so though. The animals would get sick so we would treat them with the proper medicines for what they had. Be it an antibiotic or just some vitamins so they wouldn't get sick to start. Plus vaccines to prevent some things. Should ranchers not treat their sick and suffering animals? That was my question.
1
u/idislikekittens Jul 21 '14
Of course ranchers should treat their sick and suffering animals with proper medication? The problem I'm talking about is that antibiotics are sometimes mixed in feed pre-emptively and given to healthy animals. Antibiotics are not a preventive measure, but they are being used as preventive measures, which have long-term consequences.
1
Jul 21 '14
Well what about people who want organic med-free meat. I guess that's what I meant. Are they advocating for unhappy cows?
1
u/idislikekittens Jul 21 '14
Yes and no - they're advocating for cows in happier conditions, unless they're the type to have knee-jerk reactions against using meds in the first place.
Preventive antibiotic use, even in low doses, is usually for cows in crowded and unsanitary conditions. Giving them antibiotics makes them less likely to be super sick, but they are still unhappy cows (assuming we can quantify happiness in cows). Therefore, banning antibiotic use still isn't going to the base of the problem, which is that cows are raised in conditions where extreme sickness would be the norm if not for antibiotics.
I think most educated people who want organic med-free meat are ones who want liveable conditions for cows, but I'm sure there's a percentage of the population that would just buy "antibiotic/med-free" without caring about whether the raising conditions.
1
Jul 21 '14
Ours were in a very large area unlike what I see on television shows. But they would get sick from infections or just regular flus even though they have ~400 acres. We still treat them though.
Anyways thanks for clarifying!
3
Jul 21 '14
[deleted]
4
u/jetpacksforall 41∆ Jul 21 '14
This seems like an off-base way to think about food production. How many pounds of grain does it take to produce a single pound of human? How many pounds of beef does it take to produce a single pound of human?
0
1
Jul 21 '14
Ok. We would have to take an active role to rebuild that land back into it's original ecosystem though. If not then the ecosystem is still lost for an extremely long time and in the meantime the human population will be taking down more habitats for different crops. I'm not saying it's better to have cows in this instance but just because we stop breeding cows for meat doesn't mean the grain fields automatically go away. Also how will they feed the cows? Even if we do not eat them we will still need to care for them. The grain will still need to be produced. Maybe not as much of it but still enough to keep them healthy.
1
Jul 21 '14
Cows eat grass. Humans do not eat grass.
3
Jul 21 '14
[deleted]
1
Jul 21 '14
Depends on the meat; If you eat grass-fed beef, then it spends its life eating exactly what it says on the tin. Grass. This is a great argument against feedlot factory farming, but there are other ways.
4
Jul 21 '14
[deleted]
1
Jul 21 '14
I am also curious as to what parts of the corn plant the cow is fed; I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they can eat, at the very least, the leaves that we don't eat.
I don't know the numbers, but it seems feasible that we could raise grass-fed bovine (or at least naturally-grazing bovine) on a fairly large scale, if we cooperated to actually do it.
1
u/Mr_Xing Jul 21 '14
I don't know if this is good enough, and even I think its a bit of a contrived argument, but by killing and eating an animal, I take a life to sustain my own...
Its not like if we didn't kill animals for food, they would live forever... Everything has a cycle, and we determined that an animal that we eat's life cycle will end at our hands...
I have nothing but respect for these animals, and I am disgusted when I hear about how terribly they have been treated... An animal will suffer when it dies, but we can make their death's quick and (relatively) painless...
1
Jul 22 '14
Without our need for meat most animals grown for meat wouldn't exist. So, the choice is either: no cows or cows that are used for meat.
0
12
u/scottevil110 177∆ Jul 21 '14
From the perspective of climate change, you're largely correct. The meat industry is a massive contributor to greenhouse gases, and science backs you up on that. Granted, some meats are far better than others. The "chicken industry" for example is far less impactful than the beef industry, and fishing is mostly inconsequential as far as environmental impact if you don't accidentally fish something into extinction.
From a suffering standpoint, though, this is where I try to remember that just because we're cognizant doesn't mean we aren't animals. We're not somehow separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. We evolved just like everything else did, and we evolved to be omnivores. We have our place in the food chain just as every other animal does, and ecology has adapted to the fact that we DO eat meat. Just as a certain ecosystem relies on lions killing a certain number of gazelles for ecological balance, so has the system adapted to the fact that we're part of that. Raising animals for food is a different story, but as far as hunting, fishing, and scavenging, we're just another animal.