The Ethics of Eating "Happy Meat"

[JaKael02]

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

I agree with your logic and the overuse of the term addiction. I agree there is not a physical dependence but more of a psychological expectation that all meals should include meat. This is likely due to the staple aspect of meat.

 

[Quaesitor]

Well, according to the OP you position should be that they must prove your arrogant.

 

[JaKael02]

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.

1. Your right. but please don’t miss the spirit of my argument for the sake of details. 2. I acknowledge the meat addiction is a very loose argument. I did not want to take that into specifics. It was just my perception.

Do you support animal welfare?

 

[pnewton]

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.

No, they don’t. And when times get lean, people turn to Ramen noodles, not crime. Calling eating meat an addiction is illogical rhetoric. If the time comes that the economy can not support as much meat, it will become less common over time.

 

[po18guy]

Non-theisitc argument: Mankind has evolved to the point whereby meat can be ingested and digested. It is a natural result of the evolutionary process. OP has a problem with the accidental nature of evolution.

The alternative is that this ability has come by design.

Either way, the ability exists, and cannot be denied.

 

[DCNBILL]

1. Your right. but please don’t miss the spirit of my argument for the sake of details. 2. I acknowledge the meat addiction is a very loose argument. I did not want to take that into specifics. It was just my perception.

Do you support animal welfare?

I would say that I believe that the mistreatment of animals is wrong, how I would define mistreatment may be different than others however. I believe animals were placed on the earth for the use of and the good of humanity.

 

[spencelo]

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

James,

First, I want to thank you for your courteous tone and your willingness to engage the issue seriously; if I hadn’t read your post, I would not have responded any further in this thread. The problem of animal exploitation is, of course, not limited to Catholics or Catholicism, though I think there are aspects inherent in Catholicism (and other religions) that condone the problematic treatment of animals, even if - as some argue - Catholics ought to favor FAR better treat animals than present by their own lights.

Second, I am for animal rights, if by “rights” you mean certain basic, fundamental legal protections that animals would possess in their own right. For instance, as I wrote in my linked blogpost, I do not think we should be raising animals to be killed for food even if we could give them a happy life. Beyond that, what other legal rights they ought to have is still an open question for me. I am for better animal welfare standards, but “better” to the point where animals would live genuinely happy lives - I don’t stop at the minimization of suffering (although that’s important too). So, there might not be much practical difference (perhaps some) between my support for true animal welfare standards and my support for animal rights.

 

[po18guy]

So, is a serious discussion one in which everyone agrees with you?

 

[SamH]

So, is a serious discussion one in which everyone agrees with you?

In my opinion the opposite is the case.

 

[pnewton]

So, is a serious discussion one in which everyone agrees with you?

On this issue, the Catholic Church allows for the position of the Vegan, up to the point they start telling others that eating meat is sinful. That is a pretty wide range of belief.

 

[po18guy]

In my opinion the opposite is the case.

Until and unless the OP elucidates the basis - the foundation - the underlying universal principle which both forms and guides his/her beliefs, what conversation can be had? If we are equal with the animals, should we not also be equal with one another? I see only an assumption of superiority.

The animal rights emperor, so far, has no clothes. And this is not dismissive, it is a challenge. Why should anyone, OP included, believe in such a recently promulgated concept as “animal rights”? It denies evolution, which should be very concerning to a non-believer. It fails to explain, but is quick to condemn our inherent desire and ability to consume and process various meats.

The human animal has been granted, or has developed an ability and desire to eat the flesh of animals. This is a natural result of either evolution or intelligent design. Yet, the OP avoids the issue.

We need foundation rather than feelings.

 

[Bill_Martin]

I see no moral difference between eating happy meat, unhappy meat, annoyed meat, euphoric meat, slightly irritated meat, or any other kind of meat. Just eat what you want.

 

[po18guy]

On this issue, the Catholic Church allows for the position of the Vegan, up to the point they start telling others that eating meat is sinful. That is a pretty wide range of belief.

Point made! Yet, examine the attitude of superiority of those who choose to refrain from meat. Is it arrogance? We respect their choice, while they denigrate ours.

For anything, including “animal rights” activists, to live, something must die. “Animal rights” believers are not being consistent. They decry the killing of animals while refusing to confront the morality of killing plant life. They have made the judgment that all plant life is inferior to all animal life, and so can kill and eat plants at will - even raising them in for-profit industrial farms.

Is it moral to kill plants simply because they lack the vocal cords to scream in agony as they are harvested?

This all may appear to be facetious, but it has not been answered.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

I would like to disagree in a friendly way.

1. There might not have been a “western culture” in the sense we use that term today, but there was certainly an Indo-European culture, among others. Look up “Tarim mummies” and you’ll see frozen caucasian mummies, at least 5,000 years old, in western China wearing tartans that match some of those woven in Scotland and Ireland today, accompanied by artifacts exhibiting excellent metallurgical artwork. It was every much a “culture” as the one Julius Caesar encountered in Gaul.
2. Probably Indo-European forbears ate meat more than their descendants today, not less. It is a fact that they lived for millenia out on the Eurasian steppes and were almost entirely dependent on their herds the whole time. That is probably the reason why Indo-Europeans are the only peopl on earth, the majority of which retain lactose tolerance into adulthood. Check it out. They drank milk and ate chesse and meat because that and a wild herb here and there was all there was to eat where they lived. Remember the Scythian challenge to the king of Persia inviting him to invade when he threatened to take his armies onto the steppes to chastise them. “We have no cities or crops to defend. But find the graves of our fathers and attempt to destroy them and you shall learn whether we will fight.” The Persian king backed down.

Of possible interest is the fact that during Caesar’s Gallic wars, his Roman army came close to mutiny because there was almost nothing to eat in Gaul but Gallic cattle. Roman soldiers were used to their grain 'pulmentum", but the Gauls depended on their cattle.

And the very oldest Irish tale extant is “The Cattle Raid of Culhainn (Pron: Cooley)” which is, of course, about a cattle raid; cattle being the only wealth the Irish had at the time.

 

[po18guy]

Please explain the moral/ethical difference.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Under divine inspiration, Moses gave dietary laws that included a humane method of slaughter that would result in “happy meat” and also forbade such things as force feeding animals–so hands off that goose liver. God invented humane husbandry and slaughter and barbecue. Praise God.

We Gentile Christians are not beholden to the Mosaic Law.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Julius Caesar said this of the Teutons:

“They do not live much on corn,(grain) but subsist for the most part on milk and flesh, and are much [engaged] in hunting; which circumstance must, by the nature of their food, and by their daily exercise and the freedom of their life (for having from boyhood been accustomed to no employment, or discipline, they do nothing at all contrary to their inclination), both promote their strength and render them men of vast stature of body.”

Caesar, at least, thought the Teutons’ almost exclusively meat/milk diet was actually beneficial to them. Whether he was right or wrong about their diet’s effect on their stature, it is clear from his account that they were far from being vegetarians.

undoubtedly, for most Indo-Europeans, we now eat less meat than our ancestors did, not more.

 

[spencelo]

Is it better for Pesto to have no life or to have a little time of “happiness” before being killed and eaten?

I address this in my blog post. Here is the relevant portion:

What about the common argument that if farmers can’t raise animals for food, they wouldn’t exist? For those who truly live good lives, surely it’s better for them to exist than to never have existed; otherwise there would be no Pesto, and thus none of the numerous pleasures she experiences—the alternative is non-existence. However, as McMahan points out, this view commits a conceptual error: it is incoherent to claim that it is better off for Pesto to be caused to exist, for that would imply that she – that very individual – would have been worse off had she never existed. But to speak of Pesto being worse off had she never existed is to compare the Pesto in the actual world with an entity in a possible world – namely, non-existent Pesto. Non-existence is simply not a state in which one can be worse or better off, so the argument is confused.

Instead, one could coherently claim that it is good for Pesto to exist, for the term ‘good’ (and ‘bad’) is noncomparative. Would this help the defender of happy meat? Not at all. From McMahan’s article: “To cause an individual to exist in a vulnerable and dependent condition is arguably to make oneself liable to certain duties of care…One must either refrain from causing it to exist or else arrange for it to have the care it requires once it s exists.”

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.

These are separate issues from the one I focused on in my post, so I will leave them aside for another day.

 

[spencelo]

For anything, including “animal rights” activists, to live, something must die. “Animal rights” believers are not being consistent. They decry the killing of animals while refusing to confront the morality of killing plant life.

There is no inconsistency: animals are sentient, sensitive creatures, who can experience suffering and happiness, but plants are not such creatures. Unlike animals, plants (for instance) do not have interests in avoiding torture.

 

[spencelo]

Please explain the moral/ethical difference.

We humans (for the most part) do not need to kill animals for food, whereas lions and tigers do.