The Ethics of Eating "Happy Meat"

[Sjonesd3]

How is eating meat considered any more immoral than say eating anything that was once alive?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think I have ever seen one of those “factory farm” films put out by PETA and like groups that are factually accurate, either in their descriptions of the conditions or the conditions they purport to film.

Regarding the first article, I really can’t resist asking who in the world would ever want to eat beef from a Jersey cow? Well, maybe that’s what they have at McDonald’s, and perhaps that’s why they have to cover the taste with all those sauces and things.

But for real quality, that’s certainly not the breed.

I’ll add that compared to what the life of animals is like in the wild, raising livestock is extremely benign.

 

[SamH]

My sons are raising two angus steers. Next March they will help me kill, skin and process them as part of a 4H project. Between the hamburgers and the steak I can’t wait.

Ask Michael Clarke Duncan how becoming an vegan made him more healthy.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I deny that I have the burden of proof here. If I were to take your standard seriously, then prove to me why I have the burden of proof. You wrote: If you make a claim, you must prove it.

Okay, you made the claim that if you make a claim, then you must prove it, so prove that claim. Can you? Hmmm…I suppose you should then admit that you can’t prove your own standard.

Support for you have to provide proof for your claim-
-science
-logic (unless of course you are arguing that your claim is based on an assumed truth)

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You still haven’t shown why I need prove the principle from which it follows that eating meat is immoral.

Because you are using a standard (morality) within a well defined system (the Catholic faith)which requires proof for the condition of the standard (X is moral, Y is immoral).

 

[oldcatholicguy]

My sons are raising two angus steers. Next March they will help me kill, skin and process them as part of a 4H project. Between the hamburgers and the steak I can’t wait.

Ask Michael Clarke Duncan how becoming an vegan made him more healthy.

You dirty omnivore.

 

[SamH]

You dirty omnivore.

I’ll at least wash my hands for that project.

 

[mtbender]

I assumed in what I wrote that the principle of unnecessary suffering is true, so my conclusion does follow. But again, that doesn’t appeal to you because you refuse to take morality seriously, apparently.

Proof aside, how about we start with defining your position?

You use the words “principle of unnecessary suffering” - can you define that? Can you differentiate between necessary and unnecessary? I need you to be clear on your position before I can agree or disagree… I cannot presume that to be true (or to be a commonly held belief) if it has not been clearly established. The only Principle of Unnecessary Suffering I am aware of deals with military actions - not eating meat…

What is your formula for assessing the morality/ethics of act? What criteria are you using to define ethics?

If we can get that established maybe then we can have some semblance of an discussion…

 

[po18guy]

I suspect most Catholics on here consume meat, though if they were sufficiently reflective, they would stop consuming factory-farmed meat given the terrible suffering inflicted upon sensitive, sentient creatures. However, even if Catholics were sufficiently informed of the facts, they would probably see no moral problem with eating “happy meat” - an animal who was alleged to have been well-treated from birth until slaughter. But this position is ethically problematic, or so I argue here: animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/whats-wrong-with-happy-meat/

This is an issue about which Catholicism has yielded the wrong answer, even though the answer - to sufficiently reflective persons - is so obvious. Hence I can’t take Catholicism seriously. It would be like taking seriously a religion which tolerated and encouraged human slavery. Anyway, I welcome your thoughts.

Why is it only immoral when humans eat meat?

For you to live, something must die. Should we condemn your life, since it is predatory upon other living things?

Do you not see the sublime irony in a godless person preaching morality?

 

[JaKael02]

I suspect most Catholics on here consume meat, though if they were sufficiently reflective, they would stop consuming factory-farmed meat given the terrible suffering inflicted upon sensitive, sentient creatures. However, even if Catholics were sufficiently informed of the facts, they would probably see no moral problem with eating “happy meat” - an animal who was alleged to have been well-treated from birth until slaughter. But this position is ethically problematic, or so I argue here: animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/whats-wrong-with-happy-meat/

This is an issue about which Catholicism has yielded the wrong answer, even though the answer - to sufficiently reflective persons - is so obvious. Hence I can’t take Catholicism seriously. It would be like taking seriously a religion which tolerated and encouraged human slavery. Anyway, I welcome your thoughts.

I apologize for the numerous Catholics who did not take this seriously and was quick to brush off your perspective. I see where you are coming from and you bring up a good issue.

I’d like to suggest your issue isn’t with Catholicism as much as with some of the Catholics on this forum whom are addicted to meat. Their meat addiction blinds them from accepting this issue fairly.

I believe if you look at how the CC came about their stance, you may find it more acceptable - even if your Vegetarian or Vegan.

Remember, when the CC makes a rule it has to be applicable to every age, society, culture & the future. So although Western culture has issue with meat eating, the CC can’t rule against it b/c it’s ethical & necessary for some nomadic groups and some periods of human history, etc.

Catholicism and animal welfare should not have any issues. Catholicism and animal rights do have some problematic areas.

Thoughts? Are you for better animal welfare standards or are you for full fledged animal rights?

Kindly - James

 

[Ridgerunner]

My sons are raising two angus steers. Next March they will help me kill, skin and process them as part of a 4H project. Between the hamburgers and the steak I can’t wait.

Ask Michael Clarke Duncan how becoming an vegan made him more healthy.

Angus beef = Wonderful
Hereford beef = Better still
Black baldy beef = Best

 

[MarkInOregon]

So although Western culture has issue with meat eating, the CC can’t rule against it b/c it’s ethical & necessary for some nomadic groups and some periods of human history, etc.

It is only a small segment of those in western culture who have an issue with eating meat–the vast majority of western culture has no problem with it. If God had given us animals and told us to treat them as humans according them full human rights–then the Catholic Church would have a “rule” against it regardless of whether or not it was thought that eating animals was necessary for some nomadic group. The Church doesn’t have a teaching forbidding the eating of animals because it is not immoral–culture doesn’t determine Catholic teaching–divine revelation does.

Peace,
Mark

 

[pnewton]

But it does. Again, Catholics who accept the principle of unnecessary suffering are acting inconsistently if they eat meat. If I can show the inconsistency, then it follows that I’ve proven why eating meat is wrong.

Then it should be no problem showing where the Catholic Church has taught this, right?

The two points of disconnect are your definition of “unnecessary” and the connection that the one eating the meat is the one who caused the suffering. The first is the most important as the Church never meant this to apply to ranching. It has to do with acts of cruelty aimed at animals for cruelty’s sake.

 

[JaKael02]

It is only a small segment of those in western culture who have an issue with eating meat–the vast majority of western culture has no problem with it. If God had given us animals and told us to treat them as humans according them full human rights–then the Catholic Church would have a “rule” against it regardless of whether or not it was thought that eating animals was necessary for some nomadic group. The Church doesn’t have a teaching forbidding the eating of animals because it is not immoral–culture doesn’t determine Catholic teaching–divine revelation does.

Peace,
Mark

Mark, we don’t disagree that much. I was speaking from an animal welfare perspective, not animal rights. The issue of western culture I spoke of was that W.Culture has a meat addiction (defined as eating meat 5 days/wk or more). I understand addiction/definition is debatable. I’m using historical consumption as my measuring stick.

The Catholic Church does support animal welfare. The Church does allow eating of meat. I was speaking within circumstances of moral law, not the act itself.

Thank you.

 

[JaKael02]

Angus beef = Wonderful
Hereford beef = Better still
Black baldy beef = Best

This is disrespectful of our non-Catholic creator of this thread. He has issues with CC over this moral issue, and instead of focusing on resolving them, Catholics smear the issue in his face.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I suspect most Catholics on here consume meat, though if they were sufficiently reflective, they would stop consuming factory-farmed meat given the terrible suffering inflicted upon sensitive, sentient creatures. However, even if Catholics were sufficiently informed of the facts, they would probably see no moral problem with eating “happy meat” - an animal who was alleged to have been well-treated from birth until slaughter. But this position is ethically problematic, or so I argue here: animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/whats-wrong-with-happy-meat/

This is an issue about which Catholicism has yielded the wrong answer, even though the answer - to sufficiently reflective persons - is so obvious. Hence I can’t take Catholicism seriously. It would be like taking seriously a religion which tolerated and encouraged human slavery. Anyway, I welcome your thoughts.

If Pesto was not being raised for food Pesto would have no life–no existence–no years of “happiness”. The farmer who has “created” Pesto and raised Pesto humanely has given Pesto a time of “pleasure and happiness” that Pesto would not otherwise have enjoyed. Is it better for Pesto to have no life or to have a little time of “happiness” before being killed and eaten? In your mind can an animal ever be used for work? Is it immoral to ride a horse? How do we determine whether the animal enjoys the work and is happy to do it or finds it drudgery and suffers for it? I ask because some humans really enjoy working hard and derive pleasure from it while others simply hate it.
That aside: animals were created for man and not for themselves. There is a philosophical divide in our understanding of animals and their purpose here that cannot be bridged. Your view of them would appear to bring man down to being simply a higher form of animal while elevating cows to the level of human–giving animals and humans the same rights. We see a fundamental difference between man and animals–a difference you would appear not to see. A dfference that has to do with being created in the image and likeness of God…etc–but that is a different discussion.

Peace,
Mark

 

[DCNBILL]

Peace,
Mark

Mark, we don’t disagree that much. I was speaking from an animal welfare perspective, not animal rights. The issue of western culture I spoke of was that W.Culture has a meat addiction (defined as eating meat 5 days/wk or more). I understand addiction/definition is debatable. I’m using historical consumption as my measuring stick.

The Catholic Church does support animal welfare. The Church does allow eating of meat. I was speaking within circumstances of moral law, not the act itself.

Thank you.

Is there a credible scientific source that you can site for this statement?

 

[JaKael02]

Is there a credible scientific source that you can site for this statement?

No, the conversation is based on the assumption that everyone already assumes that western culture eats significantly more meat today than we did from 6000 B.C. to 1900 A.D. Do you disagree with this assumption?

Kindly. James

 

[MarkInOregon]

Mark, we don’t disagree that much. I was speaking from an animal welfare perspective, not animal rights. The issue of western culture I spoke of was that W.Culture has a meat addiction (defined as eating meat 5 days/wk or more). I understand addiction/definition is debatable. I’m using historical consumption as my measuring stick.

The Catholic Church does support animal welfare. The Church does allow eating of meat. I was speaking within circumstances of moral law, not the act itself.

Thank you.

If I misunderstood you I apologize. I love this addiction stuff–people eat more meat today because they can afford it (or should I say could afford it?) and they like it-- not because they are addicted to it. No one is selling their parents refridgerator to run out and buy a steak to feed their addiction. And if you look at what is happening today we are starting to eat less meat because it has gotten expensive–first we move to less expensive cuts and types of meat and then we start to purchase less meat–this is the trend we are seeing today. People addicted to meat would not do this–they’d sacrifice other things to feed their addiction for meat not buy less of it. Addiction is a word that is over used and runs the risk of losing its meaning. The anti-meat crowd call it an addiction to try to make eating meat sound bad. Historically meat was a luxury as cost came down it became a staple and if costs continue to rise it may once again become a luxury.

Peace,
Mark

 

[DCNBILL]

No, the conversation is based on the assumption that everyone already assumes that western culture eats significantly more meat today than we did from 6000 B.C. to 1900 A.D. Do you disagree with this assumption?

Kindly. James

1. I do not believe there was a western culture in 6000 B.C.
2. The assumption that you make nowhere and in no way leads one to a conclusion that eating meat 5 days or more a week constitutes a “meat addiction”. Now if a person ate meat 3 times a day for every meal every day I believe that you may have a legitimate case.