killing nonhuman animals

[severus68]

My Master’s thesis deals in part with this very subject. A few thoughts:

1. The term “non-human animals” has been, I believe, co-opted by Animal rights advocates in order to muddy the distinction between humans and animals. This is particularly evident in the writings of Peter Singer, who advanced the “speciest” argument.

For those unfamiliar with this argument, in brief it is the notion that in exercising any sort of dominion over other species, we humans are guilty of “speciesm”, defined by Singer et al as being very similar to racism.

Theologically, right from the start we recognize that human beings and animals are two quite distinct beings. Speciest arguments have a different starting point.

1. “Killing of animals”, has a very general term. There is a wide range of moral scenarios that require different moral responses on the part of a Catholic Christian. For example, American Indians of the past hunted buffalo and other creatures and used every bit of their bodies for food, clothing, shelter, tools, etc. The argument can be made that they needed to use the animals to survive. Catholic theology would seem to support such treatment as animals as morally acceptable.

On the other hand, Joe Blow gets drunk and shoots his neighbor’s dog for no good reason. This would seem to be an obvious case where such an action is morally unacceptable.

1. “Having Dominion” would seem to be inclusive of the notion of Animal welfare, or in theological terms, proper stewardship of the animals in our (human) care. There are many issues on which the Church has been silent, particularly in modern day society where we do not necessarily depend on animals for survival. Issues such as Production Farming, medical and pharmacological research, hunting/fishing, etc. have not been directly addressed by the
   Church.

Just a couple of things.

I am an animal rights activists and I can tell you all ‘sane’ animal rights activists dislike. to put it mildly, Peter Singer’s utilitarian philosophy. His philosophy works against animal and humans.
BTW, I have used the term ‘non human animals’ before and it did not come from Singer. This is on the broad categories of animal, plant mineral. I do appreciate humans are special being made in the image of God, having free will and superior intellect. How should we use those special gifts from God in the way we treat animals, also creatures of God and loved by God?

I am not judging anyone but for me, it is morally right not to eat meat as it does cause pain and suffering. I eat well without meat. I cannot judge others and do not say they are morally wrong.

 

[Catholic90]

Your problem not mine. Enjoy your diseases.

It is quite a sad thing that some people who choose not to eat meat are so bitter.

I honestly do not care what foods anyone chooses to eat. However, I DO object when others think it is their way or the highway.

God designed the human body to eat all sorts of foods, including meat. If He had not meant for us to eat steak, he would not have made it taste so darn good!

So whether one chooses to eat red meat or chooses to eat tofu, that is up to each individual; however, whatever one chooses, be happy for the others, or at the very least, don’t be so bitter!!

 

[Catholic90]

Just a couple of things.

I am not judging anyone but for me, it is morally right not to eat meat as it does cause pain and suffering. I eat well without meat.** I cannot judge others and do not say they are morally wron**g.

This is exactly the right attitude to have!

 

[JaneGrey]

It is quite a sad thing that some people who choose not to eat meat are so bitter.

I honestly do not care what foods anyone chooses to eat. However, I DO object when others think it is their way or the highway.

God designed the human body to eat all sorts of foods, including meat. If He had not meant for us to eat steak, he would not have made it taste so darn good!

So whether one chooses to eat red meat or chooses to eat tofu, that is up to each individual; however, whatever one chooses, be happy for the others, or at the very least, don’t be so bitter!!

I ll be honest, it is hard not to get resentful. It is nice and in my personal experience, becoming a rarity to come across a meat eater who is able to hold off making an off colour joke or saying something even more disrespectful.

I can respect meat eaters who are respectful of others.

 

[Catholic90]

I ll be honest, it is hard not to get resentful. It is nice and in my personal experience, becoming a rarity to come across a meat eater who is able to hold off making an off colour joke or saying something even more disrespectful.

I can respect meat eaters who are respectful of others.

I was referring to Rock Happy’s attitude in his post. He chooses not to eat meat, and I am fine with that. However, from HIS post, it is clear HE does not show the same respect to meat eaters. That is wrong. Not eating meat does not mean one is a better catholic.

 

[mcrow]

Your problem not mine. Enjoy your diseases.

I happen to believe that taking care of my body is a moral act. You disagree. Assert your dominion at will. I happen to believe that taking care of others is also a moral act.

If you are overweight, please note that fat is metabolically active. It produces nasty hormones and chemicals. Not inert as previously believed. Enjoy your type two diabetes, high blood pressure, and inflammatory ailments. Oh… if your BMI is 25 or higher, you nearly double your risk of dementia in old age, BMI of 30+… fourfold. If you like your meat, please keep in mind that you are consuming low doses of antibiotics, unless you are buying the $20+/lb grass fed organic stuff. Remember with each bite that Omega 6 lipids in the cellular membrane causes inflammation at the cellular level during normal metabolic processes. Enjoy your inflammatory diseases, such as arthritis, coronary disease, and Alzheimer’s.

In 1958, there were 18 cases of prostate cancer in Japan. When the Nazis occupied Norway and took all the animal protein, the cancer and coronary incident rates plummeted for the Norwegians. I could go on and on… the evidence is copious.

I hope that none of this is true about you, and that you maintain a healthy body weight, and eat a healthy diet.

On the other hand, i had a meal with a professor of medicine just recently. he is slim and healthy, but he ordered a lot of rich french food. “Howard what are you eating?” “Well if you play the odds, we are going to die of cancer or of heart disease. I am choosing heart disease.” He was kidding of course, but it is true that we should enjoy life.

Is it a moral imperative for a spouse to stay healthy for a spouse, a parent to stay healthy to care for a child, a child to stay healthy to care for a parent? Is it a moral imperative not to be a burden on the healthcare system which is nearly broken? Is it a moral imperative to take care of our bodies made in the image of God?

Anyone who truly thinks that eating meat is unhealthy simply does not have a grasp on nutrition science. 1st of all, medical technology being what it is, compared to 1958 many men went undiagnosed with prostate cancer. The PSA test didn’t exist then, neither did many other diagnostic tests that we have today. Most of the increase in cancers being reported has to do with better diagnostic tools and the fact that until 80’s or so there was not requirement for health care organizations to report statistics, so they didn’t keep them.

 

[Catholic90]

Anyone who truly thinks that eating meat is unhealthy simply does not have a grasp on nutrition science.

 

[JaneGrey]

I was referring to Rock Happy’s attitude in his post. He chooses not to eat meat, and I am fine with that. However, from HIS post, it is clear HE does not show the same respect to meat eaters. That is wrong. Not eating meat does not mean one is a better catholic.

I understand, but i think RockHappy was commenting specifically to a poster specifically about health. I dont actually think you or anyone else in this thread has been disrespectful so far.

 

[severus68]

I understand, but i think RockHappy was commenting specifically to a poster specifically about health. I dont actually think you or anyone else in this thread has been disrespectful so far.

I agree about that.

 

[Tietjen]

does any reader of this post know of any catholic doctrine or beliefs concerning catholics killing nonhuman animals of any sort? specifically, under what circumstances is it morally approved to kill an animal; and is there any difference between, for example, killing an ant and killing a monkey?

whitecrayon

I think that one poster answered by quoting the CCC. That pretty much sums up the Church’s stance on the matter I suppose.

 

[whitecrayon]

i for one solve the problems of health and ethics, concerning eating animal flesh, by being both a pollopescovegetarian and a caretarian. the first word means someone who eats only poultry and fish (i eat only free range poultry and nonendangered seafood), and the second word (a recently coined word, i think originating from peta, the people for ethical treatment of animals) refers to someone who cares about the lives and suffering involved in what she or he eats. just thought i’d add these facts to this thread, in case they helped someone understand a few of the middle-ground positions.

 

[Tietjen]

i for one solve the problems of health and ethics, concerning eating animal flesh, by being both a pollopescovegetarian and a caretarian. the first word means someone who eats only poultry and fish (i eat only free range poultry and nonendangered seafood), and the second word (a recently coined word, i think originating from peta, the people for ethical treatment of animals) refers to someone who cares about the lives and suffering involved in what she or he eats. just thought i’d add these facts to this thread, in case they helped someone understand a few of the middle-ground positions.

I respect anyone’s opinion on what they themselves choose to eat or not eat. I likewise respect that person’s reason(s) for choosing to do so whether those reasons are health related or a perceived moral consideration. I, however, am a person who believes that if God didn’t want me to eat animals, He wouldn’t have made them out of meat.

God bless.

 

[thistle]

I’m off to have a nice juicy tasty steak now!!

 

[m134e5]

If you believe that we have a moral obligation to take proper care of our bodies, then there is plenty of evidence to suggest that eating animals is not the best thing to do for your body, if plant based protein is available as an alternative, particularly with our current food industry. So… a moral argument could be made. I would also suggest that it is not necessary to kill animals for fur anymore, with modern fabrics and insulators. There is something which seems wrong about unnecessarily killing of any creature to me.

But my bias is that I have probably become overly sensitive on the topic, because of choices I made when I was younger to be a warrior. These days, I am on another path.

We are designed to eat meat. All one has to do is examine our dental structure to prove that.

 

[Newbie2]

Just a couple of things.

I am an animal rights activists and I can tell you all ‘sane’ animal rights activists dislike. to put it mildly, Peter Singer’s utilitarian philosophy. His philosophy works against animal and humans.
BTW, I have used the term ‘non human animals’ before and it did not come from Singer. This is on the broad categories of animal, plant mineral. I do appreciate humans are special being made in the image of God, having free will and superior intellect. How should we use those special gifts from God in the way we treat animals, also creatures of God and loved by God?

I am not judging anyone but for me, it is morally right not to eat meat as it does cause pain and suffering. I eat well without meat. I cannot judge others and do not say they are morally wrong.

Much of the moral debate over the treament of animals is not focused on whether or not it is morally acceptable to kill an eat animals, but on the manner on which they are raised and slaughtered.

Regarding the term “non-human animals”, I believe in a theologically based moral debate the term “human(s)” is sufficient. It is redundant, methinks, to call humans animals in the context of distinguishing them from plants and non-living objects (minerals). Perhaps it is purely semantics, but as Catholic Christians I believe that we should be clear in all our terminology in making the distinction between humans and the rest of creation, especially animals.

BTW, are you an “animal rights activist” or an “animal welfare advocate”? I’ve come across many people who claim the former, but are really the latter. The radical animal rights activists tend to muddy the water in making that distinction. While all but the most callous of us could be described as animal welfare advocates, a significantly fewer number are animal rights advocates. Usually, but not always, ARA advocate animal welfare and animal rights and AWA advocate animal welfare but not animal rights.

Extremist ARA advocate that we humans have absolutely no authority over animals, and many hold the “speciest” position of Singer i.e. that just as it is morally wrong to treat people of other races any different than people of our own race, it is morally wrong to treat animals of other species different than members of our own species.

 

[adrift]

Firstly, plants are not creatures of God while they are part of God’s creation.

Secondly, with respect, it is possible to care about humans and animals too and at the same time. There were Saints who did both.

Creature

(1) That which has been created, i.e., produced out of nothing, viz., all things outside of God.

(2) In philosophy, a contingent being, i.e., ones not necessarily determined by reason of its nature to actual existence, but presupposing a first cause, a necessary being, as its efficient cause, namely God.

by definition plants are creatures as is all of creation.

 

[karoleck]

My Master’s thesis deals in part with this very subject. A few thoughts:

1. The term “non-human animals” has been, I believe, co-opted by Animal rights advocates in order to muddy the distinction between humans and animals. This is particularly evident in the writings of Peter Singer, who advanced the “speciest” argument.

For those unfamiliar with this argument, in brief it is the notion that in exercising any sort of dominion over other species, we humans are guilty of “speciesm”, defined by Singer et al as being very similar to racism.

Theologically, right from the start we recognize that human beings and animals are two quite distinct beings. Speciest arguments have a different starting point.

1. “Killing of animals”, has a very general term. There is a wide range of moral scenarios that require different moral responses on the part of a Catholic Christian. For example, American Indians of the past hunted buffalo and other creatures and used every bit of their bodies for food, clothing, shelter, tools, etc. The argument can be made that they needed to use the animals to survive. Catholic theology would seem to support such treatment as animals as morally acceptable.

On the other hand, Joe Blow gets drunk and shoots his neighbor’s dog for no good reason. This would seem to be an obvious case where such an action is morally unacceptable.

1. “Having Dominion” would seem to be inclusive of the notion of Animal welfare, or in theological terms, proper stewardship of the animals in our (human) care. There are many issues on which the Church has been silent, particularly in modern day society where we do not necessarily depend on animals for survival. Issues such as Production Farming, medical and pharmacological research, hunting/fishing, etc. have not been directly addressed by the
   Church.

(though Vatican 11 does give the general guidelines on this issue)

Non humans is a politically correct and philosophically warped description of animals. Animals, who have no mortal souls and who operate according to genetically coded instincts. They are not moral agents. Moral agents must, by definition, be discerning beings. I use the term ‘discerning’ in its widest meaning and I do not include the ability of, say, a bird to decide where best to build a nest as a discernment. Morality is something on a higher plane of intellectual enquiry and only humans possess it.

I read through a website on ‘Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach’ and my first impression was of how ignorant of animal behaviour someone is, who could possibly believe such errant nonsense.The Philosophical arguments used, of comparing brain damaged humans to animals, says it all really.(Peter Singer’s conclusion)

Animal Liberation is another ideology which would drive a nail into the coffin of our western Judeo-Christian society. The contradictory nature of these two philosophies is indicated by the fact that if we lessen our reliance on animal products, we must therefore increase our reliance on fossilised carbon products!

Now we can throw into the mix Veganism as a “moral baseline”. That is as anti-Catholic as any statement ever written. It contradicts the Catholic Catechism and all the Philosophical deliberations that formed it. Veganism is a personal choice based on political decisions and nothing more. It is usually fuelled by information of dubious reliability and inflated to serve the socio-political aspirations of people who do not beleive in the foundations of their own society; in short, credence is given to the moral deliberations of people like Peter Singer, whose basic Philosophical meanderings are based on the premise that the Bible is myth."

Gary .L.Francione,the spawned “son” of Singer, admits that he has taken the vegetarianism of Peter Singer’s animal liberation, into Specism as a movement ,called Veganism!So the son has even gone further down the trash can! Search Gary L.Francione in Google especially Wikipedia,you will read all of his books(11of them)–does great damage to the minds of our youth.

I am not saying that all the posters are infected with Gary L .Francione(or Singer) but some posters have reflected his ideas.One example of Francione writings— in one of his “pep” talks he urges vegans to be pro life(animal,not anti-abortion).But his idea is not the Catholic concept; but rather a false anthropological view of man, embracing Darwinian teachings.

 

[severus68]

QUOTE=Newbie2;8395764]Much of the moral debate over the treament of animals is not focused on whether or not it is morally acceptable to kill an eat animals, but on the manner on which they are raised and slaughtered.

That is true.

Regarding the term “non-human animals”, I believe in a theologically based moral debate the term “human(s)” is sufficient. It is redundant, methinks, to call humans animals in the context of distinguishing them from plants and non-living objects (minerals). Perhaps it is purely semantics, but as Catholic Christians I believe that we should be clear in all our terminology in making the distinction between humans and the rest of creation, especially animals.

While I have referred to animals as non human animals, I have not referred to humans as human animals. I am very clear as to whether I am referring to humans or animals. The terms are not important to me

BTW, are you an “animal rights activist” or an “animal welfare advocate”? I’ve come across many people who claim the former, but are really the latter. The radical animal rights activists tend to muddy the water in making that distinction. While all but the most callous of us could be described as animal welfare advocates, a significantly fewer number are animal rights advocates. Usually, but not always, ARA advocate animal welfare and animal rights and AWA advocate animal welfare but not animal rights.

Extremist ARA advocate that we humans have absolutely no authority over animals, and many hold the “speciest” position of Singer i.e. that just as it is morally wrong to treat people of other races any different than people of our own race, it is morally wrong to treat animals of other species different than members of our own species.

I am an animal rights activist. Yes, some use the two terms interchangeably. The more radical ARA I know and know off dislike a lot of what Singer has to say.

I believe as good stewards with superior intellect and free will, we should treat animals well. I also believe we can have a symbiotic relationship with animals. It is easy to abuse and that is why I believe circuses should not have animals in their acts.I do not think animals want to be humans.
I know about speciesism (please excuse the spelling) and understand where they are coming from. Singer’s philosophy to me works against both humans and animals.

 

[Rock_Happy]

It is quite a sad thing that some people who choose not to eat meat are so bitter.

I honestly do not care what foods anyone chooses to eat. However, I DO object when others think it is their way or the highway.

God designed the human body to eat all sorts of foods, including meat. If He had not meant for us to eat steak, he would not have made it taste so darn good!

So whether one chooses to eat red meat or chooses to eat tofu, that is up to each individual; however, whatever one chooses, be happy for the others, or at the very least, don’t be so bitter!!

Well, this is a limited forum. If you would stop making false presumptions, then you might not call me bitter. Back back to you. Tell us how you know what God was “thinking” about food when he “designed” the human body.

But more seriously, the idea of feeling good from eating rich protein such as meat, or high caloric sweets is a survival mechanism. The pleasure center of the brain (multiple regions) light up. This also happens with sexual activity, and pretty much any other activity that people commonly become addicted to. This physiological response helped our fore-bearers prioritize their diets in a world of scarcity. An early hunter had to expend a lot of energy to get meat. We just need to call the supermarket and they will deliver.

I would suggest that we should consider this when making food choices.

Your supposed response to my post is a non response or a diversionary attempt for reasons unknown to me.

I pose the essential question again: Is it a moral imperative not to be wasteful? Do was as stewards of the planet have the obligation to take care of it, and its animals? Is this not true dominion? It is true that our cattle in the US eat enough corn to feed the entire planet. Would it not be a higher good to reduce starvation, rather than settle into a 16 oz T-bone? Is is not a moral obligation to at least try to live a healthy lifestyle, and not cause suffering for those who rely on us, or those who care about us? Is the parent who dies of an preventable heart attack, leaving children without a care taker committing a moral offense?

There was time during which we did not have so much information. It was once believed that cow’s milk was a healthy food for kids. Turns out that it interferes with the bioavailibility of other nutrients. So, one of the worst things you can add to a kids meal is a glass of milk. Once you know that, don’t you have the obligation to serve the milk a couple hours later, if you really think the kid needs milk? This is fulfilling your moral obligation as a parent, in my opinion.

Is it a moral obligation to take care of your own body, even if that means foregoing certain pleasures? In the case of a drug addict, or a sex addict… I would say yes. Is it the responsibility of every adult to come to terms with their spiritual and emotional deficits to the best of their ability, to be a better person? I would say yes.

 

[Flyingg]

If God allows to kill animals while we have alternative ways that are more ethical, compassionate and healthy, then where is the ‘Good’ in religions?!