The Ethics of Eating "Happy Meat"

[DCNBILL]

I argue that animals were placed on earth for the glory of God and only under strict conditions, use certain animals. But they do not exist for us, but for themselves and for God.

Do you adhere to the calling from God that human beings are to cherish and care for all of this creation?

Kindly - James

All is for the greater honor and glory of God but only rational creatures can respond to that. All on earth was given to humanity, by God, so that man may have dominion over it.

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 1: 26-28[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[JaKael02]

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.

You, I, and the CC agree on the animal welfare issue. No doubt.

To address the “animal rights” issue, I need to ask you a specific question. To see where you are coming from. If you were an American Indian in 1200 A.D. and your tribe lived off the Buffalo. Does the Indian commit an act of evil to the buffalo if they kill it for their tribe? Or is there a possible circumstance that can allow the act to killing the buffalo to occur?

I think I have much I can learn from you. Thank you for responding. Kindly. James

 

[spencelo]

You, I, and the CC agree on the animal welfare issue. No doubt.

To address the “animal rights” issue, I need to ask you a specific question. To see where you are coming from. If you were an American Indian in 1200 A.D. and your tribe lived off the Buffalo. Does the Indian commit an act of evil to the buffalo if they kill it for their tribe? Or is there a possible circumstance that can allow the act to killing the buffalo to occur?

I think I have much I can learn from you. Thank you for responding. Kindly. James

I hold that unnecessary killing is wrong, and I construe necessity strictly in terms of survival. The vast majority of us don’t need to consume animal flesh to survive and stay healthy. For those who do, including (let’s suppose) the 1200 A.D. Indian, killing would be far less problematic, perhaps even permissible.

 

[JaKael02]

All is for the greater honor and glory of God but only rational creatures can respond to that. All on earth was given to humanity, by God, so that man may have dominion over it.

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 1: 26-28[/BIBLEDRB]

I adhere to your Gen quote too. So our source of disagreement seems to be over the correct interpretation of “Dominion”.

1. What does ‘dominion’ mean to you? Does it include ‘stewardship over them’ or treating all creatures is in terms of our obligation to our merciful, compassionate God?
2. My quote from Corinthians was to insist it’s better to NOT do an act that is permitted, if the act is going to further weaken a brother in the faith. Do you you agree?

Thank you. Good discussion so far.

 

[JaKael02]

I hold that unnecessary killing is wrong, and I construe necessity strictly in terms of survival. The vast majority of us don’t need to consume animal flesh to survive and stay healthy. For those who do, including (let’s suppose) the 1200 A.D. Indian, killing would be far less problematic, perhaps even permissible.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. My conclusion so far: The morality is dependent upon the “circumstance & intention” rather than the strict “act” itself.

You do not adhere to a supreme being or aka God. Who is to be the distributor or granter of the rights to the animals? You stated they need legal protection, so humans must be involved in the “granting” of these rights?

Thanks.

 

[spencelo]

Okay, I see where you are coming from. My conclusion so far: The morality is dependent upon the “circumstance & intention” rather than the strict “act” itself.

Do you accept the notion that killing animals for food is okay even though it isn’t necessary for human health and survival?

You do not adhere to a supreme being or aka God. Who is to be the distributor or granter of the rights to the animals? You stated they need legal protection, so humans must be involved in the “granting” of these rights?
Thanks.

Yes, just as humans are involved in the administrators of human legal rights. Whether there is a god or not, humans run society and make laws.

 

[DCNBILL]

I adhere to your Gen quote too. So our source of disagreement seems to be over the correct interpretation of “Dominion”.

1. What does ‘dominion’ mean to you? Does it include ‘stewardship over them’ or treating all creatures is in terms of our obligation to our merciful, compassionate God?
2. My quote from Corinthians was to insist it’s better to NOT do an act that is permitted, if the act is going to further weaken a brother in the faith. Do you you agree?

Thank you. Good discussion so far.

1. To use the resources of the earth, including animals, as is fitting for the survival, comfort and enjoyment of humanity. I would take my clue from the Gospels and Acts here. Jesus certainly enjoyed meals that included animal meat, especially lamb that were slaughtered by the thousands for passover feasts, note that there is not one mention in the Gospels by Jesus concerning “rights” of animals.
2. Corinthians was addressing the eating of food sacrificed to pagan gods so I think that it would not be relevant to this discussion.

 

[JaKael02]

1. To use the resources of the earth, including animals, as is fitting for the survival, comfort and enjoyment of humanity. I would take my clue from the Gospels and Acts here. Jesus certainly enjoyed meals that included animal meat, especially lamb that were slaughtered by the thousands for passover feasts, note that there is not one mention in the Gospels by Jesus concerning “rights” of animals.
2. Corinthians was addressing the eating of food sacrificed to pagan gods so I think that it would not be relevant to this discussion.

1. The Gospels did not mention “animal rights”. I told you previously that I do not currently adhere to “rights” but “welfare”. Gospels didn’t mention a lot of things. But where is your dominion definition do you express:
   “Animals are God’s creatures. By their mere existence they bless Him and give Him glory. Thus men owe them kindness.” Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2416
2. You know your bible. I’m happy. Not many Catholics do. Paul is referring to idol meat, but the moral teaching still applies does it not?

 

[JaKael02]

Do you accept the notion that killing animals for food is okay even though it isn’t necessary for human health and survival?

I’m chewing on this at the moment. I currently do not eat meat. But CC says the act itself is not a moral sin. You & I agree. Circumstances & Intention change the matter.

The Church has been relatively quiet with regards to deeper moral theology regarding it. This is typical. The Church usually lets people chew on stuff for extended periods of time and usually don’t make pronouncements unless friction gets bad.

So I need to reflect and get back with you. Is that okay?

Yes, just as humans are involved in the administrators of human legal rights. Whether there is a god or not, humans run society and make laws.

Gotcha. So we will assume humans will be the administrators of “rights”. How will rights be defined or created? Is it democratic vote, socially or culturally based? Should one culture force their defined view of “animal rights” on another nation that don’t adhere to same rights? I ask b/c humans are fallible and may conclude different rights to different animals via different ages, cultures, societies, etc.

 

[DCNBILL]

1. The Gospels did not mention “animal rights”. I told you previously that I do not currently adhere to “rights” but “welfare”. Gospels didn’t mention a lot of things. But where is your dominion definition do you express:
   “Animals are God’s creatures. By their mere existence they bless Him and give Him glory. Thus men owe them kindness.” Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2416
2. You know your bible. I’m happy. Not many Catholics do. Paul is referring to idol meat, but the moral teaching still applies does it not?

1. Ah but read on from the CCC
   2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

1. I would say that the moral lesson is less about eating food than it is about giving good example to others.

 

[spencelo]

I’m chewing on this at the moment. I currently do not eat meat. But CC says the act itself is not a moral sin. You & I agree. Circumstances & Intention change the matter.

The Church has been relatively quiet with regards to deeper moral theology regarding it. This is typical. The Church usually lets people chew on stuff for extended periods of time and usually don’t make pronouncements unless friction gets bad.

So I need to reflect and get back with you. Is that okay?

Sure.

Gotcha. So we will assume humans will be the administrators of “rights”. How will rights be defined or created? Is it democratic vote, socially or culturally based? Should one culture force their defined view of “animal rights” on another nation that don’t adhere to same rights? I ask b/c humans are fallible and may conclude different rights to different animals via different ages, cultures, societies, etc.

Currently, in the U.S., where we have a constitutional republic, rights are created via the constitution, legislation, and common law. Once the push for animal rights has received sufficient public support, the property status of animals can start to chip away. Moreover, we humans are fallible, but there are no infallible beings running society – we have to do things by ourselves.

 

[spencelo]

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

But that’s precisely what we do to animals 99.99% of the time when we kill them for food – completely unnecessary. However, it appears you think that killing animals for tasty meals is part of concept of “necessity.”

 

[JaKael02]

Do you accept the notion that killing animals for food is okay even though it isn’t necessary for human health and survival?

I got an answer.
Can you kill an animal for food? Yes
Can you kill an animal for food even though it isn’t necessary for human health and survival? Depends upon each individuals circumstance and intention.

This can get very technical. Depends if they are aware of animal abuse and how much of a contribution the individual contributes to creating the abuse. And dependent upon upbringing and education about how animals feel pain, etc.

Many situations can occur that should make the act of killing an animal for food immoral. My situation, I believe it does.

Where am I wrong in my thought process? Thanks.

 

[JaKael02]

1. I would say that the moral lesson is less about eating food than it is about giving good example to others.

1. I agree. They did leave it open ended for certain circumstances and intentions which can make it debatable.
2. That was the point I was trying to make. You didn’t do the bad example, others did on this forum by mocking the thread creator.

 

[DCNBILL]

But that’s precisely what we do to animals 99.99% of the time when we kill them for food – completely unnecessary. However, it appears you think that killing animals for tasty meals is part of concept of “necessity.”

Food is necessary for survival.
Animals are placed on this earth to be food along with various other purposes.
Animals should be killed before eaten.

Ergo, yes I believe that animals should be killed prior to being eaten as food.

How is this unnecessary?

 

[JaKael02]

Currently, in the U.S., where we have a constitutional republic, rights are created via the constitution, legislation, and common law. Once the push for animal rights has received sufficient public support, the property status of animals can start to chip away. Moreover, we humans are fallible, but there are no infallible beings running society – we have to do things by ourselves.

Gotcha. In general, do some rights supersede other rights? Is there a hierarchy of rights? Such as a right to life supersedes a right to free speech which supersedes someones right to elements of healthcare?

**

 

[spencelo]

I got an answer.
Can you kill an animal for food? Yes
Can you kill an animal for food even though it isn’t necessary for human health and survival? Depends upon each individuals circumstance and intention.

This can get very technical. Depends if they are aware of animal abuse and how much of a contribution the individual contributes to creating the abuse. And dependent upon upbringing and education about how animals feel pain, etc.

Many situations can occur that should make the act of killing an animal for food immoral. My situation, I believe it does.

Where am I wrong in my thought process? Thanks.

From what you say, it’s unclear whether you accept the Necessity Principle, that killing animals for food is immoral when doing so is unnecessary for human health and survival. If you think there are circumstances where killing animals is okay, even when doing so is unnecessary, then you reject the Necessity Principle, and that’s where you go wrong. Ignorance about animals may immunize an individual from culpability (so he has an excuse), but that wouldn’t enable his action to be morally permissible.

 

[DCNBILL]

1. I agree. They did leave it open ended for certain circumstances and intentions which can make it debatable.
2. That was the point I was trying to make. You didn’t do the bad example, others did on this forum by mocking the thread creator.

I am not going to mock the beliefs of anyone they are entitled to believe what they want to believe, but I will also defend my beliefs in my Faith and my God when they are challenged, especially by those who would say that my Lord and Savior is wrong.

I also may make a poor attempt at humor now and then but it is not intended to hurt anyone.

 

[spencelo]

Gotcha. In general, do some rights supersede other rights? Is there a hierarchy of rights? Such as a right to life supersedes a right to free speech which supersedes someones right to elements of healthcare?

**

The basic, fundamental rights enshrined in the constitutional supersedes rights not derived from the constitution when they conflict.

 

[spencelo]

Food is necessary for survival.
Animals are placed on this earth to be food along with various other purposes.
Animals should be killed before eaten.

Ergo, yes I believe that animals should be killed prior to being eaten as food.

How is this unnecessary?

While food is necessary for survival, we need not consume animals for food – a plant-based diet is fully adequate. So the consumption of animals is not necessary for survival.