The Ethics of Eating "Happy Meat"

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deer season starts in 3 weeks. Now everyone knows Iā€™m a murderer. Not a very good one, but a murderer none the less. šŸ˜ƒ
 
spencelo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Animals are sentient for the most part. No argument there. But they are not in the same way we are. I have lived among and raised animals all my life, particularly cattle, and they are just not like us in a lot of ways.

I have certainly seen, e.g., cattle who are ā€œhappyā€ in a way to go from a poor pasture to a better one. Certainly, they eat more heartily and lay down to chew their cuds more quickly. But I have also seen them eat red oak acorns that have a lot of prussic acid and become sick from doing it, then do it again the following year. Bulls certainly breed cows, but it bears no resemblance whatever to human sexuality. They exhibit no affection whatever. No forethought and no afterthought. Yes, a mother will protect her calf. But if it dies, she walks away and does not return to it or grieve for a single second. Instinct. Nothing more. If her calf is weaned, she no longer knows itā€™s hers.

Never have I seen an animal admire a beautiful sunset or spare a flower in its path. Never have I seen one exhibit the slightest aesthetic sense. Never have I seen one step aside to avoid mashing a bug. Never have I seen one even glance at the most beautiful butterly imaginable. Never have I seen one stop to admire the flight of birds.

Their pain is not like ours. I often drive cattle with a light whip. Some people think thatā€™s terrible. But itā€™s the snap, not the impact, to which they react. They will pile into each other with a force that would crush every bone in a human body, and show no effect whatever. Not the slightest indication of pain, and certainly no sense of outrage. They will stand in icy water in the winter or lay down in the snow to sleep, and all without exhibiting any reaction different from laying down in a summer meadow.

A dog that suffers a gash will lick its wound. A human will seek help. A cow suffering the same thing will not do anything at all but eat, drink or breed just as it always does. It will drink dirty water as readily as it will clean. It will drink water fouled by its own manure when sparkling clean water is just a foot or two upstream. It takes no notice or account of fish it might suck in.

Animals do not even grieve their own deaths. When dying naturally, they find a place, lay down and ultimately succumb. A dog might seek its master, but probably wonā€™t. Most animals donā€™t complain. They donā€™t look for help. They do not aid each other.

They are not us and we are not them.

Animals are driven by instinct. That instinct is directed toward their needs. They do not, in a human sense, have ā€œwantsā€.

Thatā€™s not to say we should treat them cruelly. One has to know them in order to know what that is. Itā€™s not the same as with us at all.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Animals are sentient for the most part. No argument there. But they are not in the same way we are. I have lived among and raised animals all my life, particularly cattle, and they are just not like us in a lot of ways.

I have certainly seen, e.g., cattle who are ā€œhappyā€ in a way to go from a poor pasture to a better one. Certainly, they eat more heartily and lay down to chew their cuds more quickly. But I have also seen them eat red oak acorns that have a lot of prussic acid and become sick from doing it, then do it again the following year. Bulls certainly breed cows, but it bears no resemblance whatever to human sexuality. They exhibit no affection whatever. No forethought and no afterthought. Yes, a mother will protect her calf. But if it dies, she walks away and does not return to it or grieve for a single second. Instinct. Nothing more. If her calf is weaned, she no longer knows itā€™s hers.

Never have I seen an animal admire a beautiful sunset or spare a flower in its path. Never have I seen one exhibit the slightest aesthetic sense. Never have I seen one step aside to avoid mashing a bug. Never have I seen one even glance at the most beautiful butterly imaginable. Never have I seen one stop to admire the flight of birds.

Their pain is not like ours. I often drive cattle with a light whip. Some people think thatā€™s terrible. But itā€™s the snap, not the impact, to which they react. They will pile into each other with a force that would crush every bone in a human body, and show no effect whatever. Not the slightest indication of pain, and certainly no sense of outrage. They will stand in icy water in the winter or lay down in the snow to sleep, and all without exhibiting any reaction different from laying down in a summer meadow.

A dog that suffers a gash will lick its wound. A human will seek help. A cow suffering the same thing will not do anything at all but eat, drink or breed just as it always does. It will drink dirty water as readily as it will clean. It will drink water fouled by its own manure when sparkling clean water is just a foot or two upstream. It takes no notice or account of fish it might suck in.

Animals do not even grieve their own deaths. When dying naturally, they find a place, lay down and ultimately succumb. A dog might seek its master, but probably wonā€™t. Most animals donā€™t complain. They donā€™t look for help. They do not aid each other.

They are not us and we are not them.

Animals are driven by instinct. That instinct is directed toward their needs. They do not, in a human sense, have ā€œwantsā€.

Thatā€™s not to say we should treat them cruelly. One has to know them in order to know what that is. Itā€™s not the same as with us at all.
Click to expand...
You severely underestimate the extent to which nonhuman animals are sentient: news.discovery.com/animals/animals-consciousness-mammals-birds-octopus-120824.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1
Code: 
An international group of prominent scientists supports the idea that animals are conscious and aware to the degree that humans are.

The list includes all mammals, birds and even some encephlopods.

The group says consciousness can emerge even in those animals that are very much unlike humans.
 
spencelo said:
You severely underestimate the extent to which nonhuman animals are sentient: news.discovery.com/animals/animals-consciousness-mammals-birds-octopus-120824.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1
Code: 
An international group of prominent scientists supports the idea that animals are conscious and aware to the degree that humans are.

The list includes all mammals, birds and even some encephlopods.

The group says consciousness can emerge even in those animals that are very much unlike humans.
Click to expand...
Live with animals for years, taking care and nurturing them, observing everything they do, and youā€™ll not think they are much like humans.

ā€œConsciousā€? Of course. That just means ā€œawakeā€. Of course animals are often awake. Nobody doubts that.

ā€œAwareā€? Sure. They have eyes that work, ears that hear, noses that smell and skins that feel. So, of course theyā€™re ā€œawareā€.

But they donā€™t appreciate what we do, donā€™t care to hear what we want to hear, are oblivious to smells that enrapture us and often that disgust us, and donā€™t feel the way we do about much other than eating, drinking and breeding. And even in those limited things, the differences are profound.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Live with animals for years, taking care and nurturing them, observing everything they do, and youā€™ll not think they are much like humans.
Click to expand...
The fact that animals lack many interests that humans have doesnā€™t mean they donā€™t have many interests which should be respected in their own right ā€“ why should human experiences be the yardstick by which we should measure value?
Ridgerunner said:
ā€œConsciousā€? Of course. That just means ā€œawakeā€. Of course animals are often awake. Nobody doubts that.

ā€œAwareā€? Sure. They have eyes that work, ears that hear, noses that smell and skins that feel. So, of course theyā€™re ā€œawareā€.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the full article; those terms have very specific meanings beyond the simplistic definitions you ascribe to them. The underlying idea behind the articleā€™s claim is that animalsā€™ inner lives, in many ways, are as rich and deep as ours.
Ridgerunner said:
But they donā€™t appreciate what we do, donā€™t care to hear what we want to hear, are oblivious to smells that enrapture us and often that disgust us, and donā€™t feel the way we do about much other than eating, drinking and breeding. And even in those limited things, the differences are profound.
Click to expand...
The claim that animals only really care about ā€œeating, drinking and breedingā€ reflects a profound lack of understanding of their inner lives. An example (whales): wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/whalepeople/ And here (pigs): wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/whalepeople/
 
spencelo said:
Animals are our slaves. Why is that not an inaccurate description?
Click to expand...
Because animals are hardly our slaves.
spencelo said:
The idea that veganism is a luxury is a myth: vegankit.com/
Click to expand...
Sorry, Iā€™m not convinced.
spencelo said:
Iā€™m only pointing out the morally abominable practice - not sure why you see that as ā€œshovingā€ veganism down peopleā€™s throats.
Click to expand...
Oh really? And yet you tend to go off comparing the consumption of meat to every evil in this world. Do you not realize that itā€™s the reason why vegans are given a bad name?
 
pete_29 said:
Deer season starts in 3 weeks. Now everyone knows Iā€™m a murderer. Not a very good one, but a murderer none the less. šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
Hey! I eat meat as part of my diet. Does this mean that Iā€™m some evil genocidal maniac? šŸ˜ƒ
Join the club! šŸ˜ƒ
 
spencelo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why is suffering bad? Can you explain?
 
Crescentinus said:
Because animals are hardly our slaves.
Click to expand...
Of course they are ā€“ animals are property, to be used and exploited as our resource. We use them for our own ends (e.g., for food), even when doing so is contrary to theirs interests and well-being. Animals are owned by humans, in a similar way that blacks were owned by whites. Perhaps you think itā€™s perfectly fine to subject animals to unmitigated suffering and cruelty for human interests, however trivial, but thatā€™s slavery: you just happen to think itā€™s okay.
Crescentinus said:
Sorry, Iā€™m not convinced.
Click to expand...
Thatā€™s unfortunate. I can only encourage you to study the information more carefully.
Crescentinus said:
Oh really? And yet you tend to go off comparing the consumption of meat to every evil in this world. Do you not realize that itā€™s the reason why vegans are given a bad name?
Click to expand...
I believe that the consumption of meat is a great moral wrong, similar to slavery, and I am simply arguing for my position. Critics are free to disagree, of course, but inviting disagreement is hardly ā€œshovingā€ anything down peopleā€™s throats. If anything, since posters keep coming back to this thread, they are more than willing to have things ā€œshovedā€ in them.
 
Bill_Martin said:
If you donā€™t see the difference between torturing animals for fun and eating them for food, then it is because you refuse to and no amount of explaining will suffice.
Click to expand...
Or it could be because: (a) Iā€™m genuinely puzzled about what the difference is, if it exists (not because I know there is no difference and ā€œrefuseā€ to acknowledge it, or (b) there really is no difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top