Freedomain Radio

People tend to be drawn to other people/sources they have much in common with or/and can relate to, so it's not far-fetched to assume that the majority of users using the freedomain boards are of the same conviction - that morality can be objective. And on that note I thought it would be interesting to read the responses to the killing and/or eating of animals.

a) Is it morally justifiable to kill animals?
b) Is it morally justifiable to eat animals?
c) If it's okay - does this invole all animals or just some? If "some" - what makes some animals okay to kill and others not? Is it for example more okay to kill a fish than a dog, and if so - why? Recent science points us in the direction to believe that fish feels just as much pain as any other animal.
d) If you don't think it's okay to kill any creatures - but still eat them, what does that say about your morality?
e) Would you be willing to eat meat from people too if it was sold in the store? If not - why?

I'd love to read the responses from you guys. Many thanks.

P.S. I'm not a vegetarian.

Is it morally justifiable for animals to kill you?

(another question I just thought of)

my personal opinion: a)yes b)yes c)all are fair game d)N/A e)no, that's weird/gross.

The Andes plane crash survivors were justified in eating humans because they had no alternative. We do, so it would not only be freakin horrible, but a violation of the principle of reciprocity, because if you are to view others as food then you must also offer your own body to them for the same purpose.

I think a similar argument can be applied to the killing of animals. If it is true that eating flesh is the only way to achieve human health, then it is justified. However, if excellent (or greater) health can be achieved by eating plants, it's kinda mean to kill sentient beings unecessarily (I don't think "kinda mean" is the same as immoral). So the science of nutrition is really important in this debate.

Those Andes plane crash survivors didn't kill anyone, they just ate the bodies after they were dead.

fingolfin:

Those Andes plane crash survivors didn't kill anyone, they just ate the bodies after they were dead.

You are right - I watched the documentary recently: incredible story. So that was a red herring (but they're edible too).

When you come in from outdoors and you're so hungry, and you smell a freshly-roasted rack of lamb just coming out of the  oven, it's going to be a different question than when you are full of stomach, and sitting at the edge of a pleasant meadow and the same little lamb goes bouncing by kicking up its heels.

I'm starting to wonder if the vegetarian question isn't somewhat like the Santa Claus question - there's some lying going on somewhere along the line, to yourself, and that may be a consideration worth more thought. I used to be a vegetarian, but for mere convenience, I let it go. 

I'm open to changing back to vegetarianism, I - sigh - suppose.

Testudines:

I'm open to changing back to vegetarianism, I - sigh - suppose.

I think people should eat what makes them happy, arguably with the exclusion of cannibalism. However, as far as it is sufficiently compatible with short-term pleasure, I have decided it is well worth my while to explore the researched (and experiential) health benefits of different options with a view to longer term health and happiness. My adhesion to this principle has gained momentum with each passing year after I topped fifty.

Isn't it just as simple as so that we are - just as any other animal - selfish creatures and everything we do in life we do in one way or the other out of selfish motives? We eat meat because it tastes good. Most of us have grown up with it and got used to do it - and because it does satisfy our hunger, we see no reason in changing that - regardless if it's "moral" or "immoral".

I don't want to get too sidetracked by the issue of morality and meat because I don't consider it to be a fundamentally moral issue (and I could be wrong about that). I am a big fan of selfishness, but it's a tricky topic. I have discovered, slowly and reluctantly at times, that there is nothing more pleasurable than to live a virtuous life, and to do that we need to apply great discrimination in choosing how to spend our short time in the world. If a man is surrounded by food and wine, and can beckon servants at the snap of his fingers, it might appear that his happiness is guaranteed, but if he simply reclines and enjoys carnal pleasures all day, he will soon become restless and dissatisfied. We cannot enjoy rest without work, food without hunger, or companionship without loneliness.

Diet is subject to the same constraints. Meat is all well and good, but plants are absolutely delicous and extremely nutritous. I think their delicate flavour can only be appreciated to the full by relinquishing or limiting rich foods, acohol, coffee and animal proteins. To give an example, someone who is used to a diet of processed foods will recoil from a simple dish of lightly cooked grains and plants or even simply prepared meat, if that is one's preference, washed down with a wholesome glass of fresh water rather than soda or beer, because it will taste alien and insipid to them. They are accustomed to the harmful additives and flavour enhancers that the food industry loves to use. So "selfish motives" are always the driving force, but we need to arrive at a deep understanding of self and the options available in the world to explore them fully.

To focus more on the subject of meat, I have killed animals in my life and the memory of each such event remains with me to this day. If I could live my life over I would not repeat those acts, so, out of a selfish regard for my emotional tranquillity and my anguish in response to the suffering of animals, I have learned that I prefer not to kill them, even by proxy, if that is avoidable. I think everyone must follow their own path and their own heart in this regard.  

So we should be putting food into our mouths to satisfy the desires of others, and not ourselves? Doesn't seem like a person can practice that for too long before starving to death.

Maybe that's what the question of 'eating meat' is really about, it's a question of 'being selfish'?

I hope you don't mind me saying, that while these are interesting questions they are not very good ones.

For me the important questions are:

1) what conditions and qualities make the animals known as humans worthy of moral consideration

2) why do some of these humans think that a similar set of conditions and qualities in non-human animals don't make them worthy of moral consideration too

The above kind of questions have been well addressed in philosophical literature, with the conclusion being that non-human animals should (logically) be given equal moral consideration.

Talking about personal preferences/likes is irrelivant to the ethical discourse, but can glean some useful information. For example, most mentally well people prefer not to kill animals, what does that say?

 Oh, question c was quite good, and seems similar to my points above.

Theodoric:

I don't want to get too sidetracked by the issue of morality and meat because I don't consider it to be a fundamentally moral issue (and I could be wrong about that). I am a big fan of selfishness, but it's a tricky topic. I have discovered, slowly and reluctantly at times, that there is nothing more pleasurable than to live a virtuous life, and to do that we need to apply great discrimination in choosing how to spend our short time in the world. If a man is surrounded by food and wine, and can beckon servants at the snap of his fingers, it might appear that his happiness is guaranteed, but if he simply reclines and enjoys carnal pleasures all day, he will soon become restless and dissatisfied. We cannot enjoy rest without work, food without hunger, or companionship without loneliness.

Diet is subject to the same constraints. Meat is all well and good, but plants are absolutely delicous and extremely nutritous. I think their delicate flavour can only be appreciated to the full by relinquishing or limiting rich foods, acohol, coffee and animal proteins. To give an example, someone who is used to a diet of processed foods will recoil from a simple dish of lightly cooked grains and plants or even simply prepared meat, if that is one's preference, washed down with a wholesome glass of fresh water rather than soda or beer, because it will taste alien and insipid to them. They are accustomed to the harmful additives and flavour enhancers that the food industry loves to use. So "selfish motives" are always the driving force, but we need to arrive at a deep understanding of self and the options available in the world to explore them fully.

To focus more on the subject of meat, I have killed animals in my life and the memory of each such event remains with me to this day. If I could live my life over I would not repeat those acts, so, out of a selfish regard for my emotional tranquillity and my anguish in response to the suffering of animals, I have learned that I prefer not to kill them, even by proxy, if that is avoidable. I think everyone must follow their own path and their own heart in this regard.  

A good, enlightened post, Theodoric, I'd say. 

SimonF:

I hope you don't mind me saying, that while these are interesting questions they are not very good ones.

For me the important questions are:

1) what conditions and qualities make the animals known as humans worthy of moral consideration

2) why do some of these humans think that a similar set of conditions and qualities in non-human animals don't make them worthy of moral consideration too

The above kind of questions have been well addressed in philosophical literature, with the conclusion being that non-human animals should (logically) be given equal moral consideration.

Talking about personal preferences/likes is irrelivant to the ethical discourse, but can glean some useful information. For example, most mentally well people prefer not to kill animals, what does that say?

 Oh, question c was quite good, and seems similar to my points above.

I obviously disagree with the questions not being good ones (these questions are arguably some of the greatest ever written in a forum) - but it's a matter of what kind of answers you're looking for. I was mostly interested in hearing how people look at their eating and potentially even killing of animals and how that works out with their "supreme" morality (if the person see's himself as "virtuous" then one could argue that is equal to "supreme" morality - from the own persons perspective at least) and the non-violence principle.

Sounds like you're trying to understand if preferences for behavior (non-agression) are 'universal' (i.e. applicable to all cases)

A very sharp-minded and inspirational man called Steve Pavlina, probably viewed as one of the most successful personal development bloggers on the Internet now as he hits over two million monthly readers, has written a few very thought-provoking and interesting articles on the subject:

Modern-Day Nazis

Go Hunting

Why Vegan?