The Ethics of Eating "Happy Meat"

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But I can conceive of no circumstance under which eating meat is morally permissible if it is not required for human health or survival.
Yet you came here to this Catholic website, a Church that acknowledges it is morally permissible to eat meat. So there are two possibilities. One, the Church is inconsistent in its conclusion. Two, there is more than the one conclusion you have made. In this case, I say there is more than one conclusion. You have based your conclusion on the one word: unnecessary. You have given it the meaning of something that is absolutely necessary for biological survival. This is not what the Church means. Rather, unnecessary suffering is suffering inflicted above and beyond what is needed for an otherwise good, or neutral goal. Hunting is permitted. Hunting an elephant, cutting off the tusks and leaving it to slowly die, is not.
 
I don’t accept the notion of “inherent rights.” Rather, I believe every sentient being has interests (e.g., interest in not being tortured), and those interests should be given equal consideration no matter the species. If a dog suffers as much as a child from being whipped, both beings have equal interests in not being whipped.
But isn’t this statement of yours the same as saying that animals** inherently **have rights whether or not humans confer them upon the animals?
The moral permissibility of an act isn’t dependent on whether humans decide to confer legal rights on animals. It’s wrong to torture a chicken (happens ALL the time), even though that’s perfectly legal.
 
I really do wonder how many people who talk about “factory farms” have ever been in one.

I have been in a number of poultry and hog operations, and none of them was the horror show people seem to think they are.

I’ll grant that cattle feed lots are nasty, however. They smell awful because of all the fermenting grain and grain byproducts that get spilled. But it’s also true that: a) a lot of cattle never see a feed lot; only those that yield the best cuts, b) feeding out like that isn’t really necessary, and c) it only goes on for 80-120 days for any one animal.

Otherwise, beef cattle are pretty pampered…far, far better lives than those of ruminants that live in the wild.

How many people have ever been in a meat processing plant? Do you know what they’re really like?
There’s inside footage on the net, and it does not look nice
 
Catholics can be so rude when it comes to compassion for animals. So unchristian like.

So many claim compassion for animals while holding hardened hearts; just like pagans do regarding a variety of other sins.
 
You mean like vegans that could care less about babies being killed but freakout if someone eats a burger?

🤷
 
But man is not only biological, or even primarily biological. Calling humans animals is at the very root of the de-humanization I was speaking of, even though you were only referring to biology.
I’d say humans are animals. I don’t see why you could claim we’re not. 🤷

Of course, that doesn’t mean we don’t have limits or morals. And, yes, animal cruelty is wrong.
 
I’d say humans are animals. I don’t see why you could claim we’re not. .
In the traditional Catholic definition, I am thinking of Aquinas, humans are not animals. Animals do not have an eternal soul. People do. Both are biological organisms. But this difference may well be one of definition more than substance. And of course animal cruelty is wrong, again, depending on how cruelty is defined.
 
Why vegetarianism will not save the world
The truth is that agriculture is the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet, and more of the same won’t save us. The truth is that agriculture requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. The truth is also that life isn’t possible without death, that no matter what you eat, someone has to die to feed you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top