Horizon: Should I eat Meat?

[sleaterkinney]

Why would depriving the pig of future good experiences matter?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You think that your interest in eating the pig's flesh outweighs the pig's interest in all of those future good experiences.

Put bluntly, yes, I do.

 

[joustmaster]

I entirely agree with Bees.
Eating a nice bit of slow roast shoulder of pork with some crackling every now and then, far outweighs the pigs right to live, imo

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Put bluntly, yes, I do.

That's at the heart of the problem for me. Its the belief that minor human interests can trump the fundamental interests of other sentient creatures. It's that attitude that allows the widespread atrocities that are inflicted against millions of animals everyday.

 

[el-ahrairah]

But it doesn't help the vegetarian argument to say that somebody who eats a couple of dozen mussels is responsible for the deaths of 24 animals. It dilutes the argument and makes it weak and makes the person claiming it look ridiculous.

are you reading what you're writing here? what you're saying is that the truth is ridiculous! we should pretend that meat eaters eat less animals than they do because meat eaters don't think that some of the animals they eat are animals?

 

[el-ahrairah]

None of our positions is logical. Logic does not produce morality. Emotion does, and emotion is informed by many things.

that sounds like an excuse to me.

 

[gentlegreen]

.

 

[el-ahrairah]

You're getting rather close to anthropomorphic bollocks there.

fucking hell bees, i had sympathy to your position earlier, now you're being a self-deluded meat-twat

 

[el-ahrairah]

Yeah all meat eaters are exactly like that. You tit.

stop bleating and prove me wrong.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

That's at the heart of the problem for me. Its the belief that minor human interests can trump the fundamental interests of other sentient creatures. It's that attitude that allows the widespread atrocities that are inflicted against millions of animals everyday.

I don't view feeding myself, or the love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it as a minor interest. I think it's a fundamental part of us.

As for that allowing atrocities - I've stated several times that I'd be happy to see the back of a huge swathe of farming practices.

 

[el-ahrairah]

Not really, the animals are unconscious for most slaughter methods.

no they're not.

 

[xenon]

Hmm. Depriving the pig of future good experiences by slaughtering it.
Or leaving wild pigs to be killed by disease, grow weak, old and possibly fall prey to animal predators. Culling would be out of the question should the population grow beyond the capacity of the local environment to support them.

It might be a shortlived ethical conundrum of course, as those breeds kept for food die out in the wild. I imagine arrible farmers aren't likely to refuse shooting them should they threaten crops. But not eat them, that would be wrong.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

fucking hell bees, i had sympathy to your position earlier, now you're being a self-deluded meat-twat

How is not viewing the life of a pig through loaded human terms being deluded?

 

[el-ahrairah]

You seem to be equating killing something with it suffering.

If someone walked up behind me now and put a bullet into my brain I wouldn't suffer one little bit. I'd be dead in a heartbeat.

However, if someone kept me in a tight pen with no natural light and force fed me for months on end and then put a bullet in my head? You might have a point.

christ on a fucking bike. if we're in imaginary killing animals land, why don;t you tell me you're going to stroke it to death on a waterbed whilst its favourite record plays.

 

[el-ahrairah]

How is not viewing the life of a pig through loaded human terms being deluded?

except that you're viewing it through loaded human terms in the other direction. have you ever had pets?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

except that you're viewing it through loaded human terms in the other direction. have you ever had pets?

Yep. Your point is?

 

[el-ahrairah]

more later.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I assume we're heading towards a "well why don't you eat them" question?

 

[el-ahrairah]

Yep. Your point is?

this first,

so you understand that animals have desires, needs, characters even, that are independent of each other -that each e.g. dog has a different 'personality' and that animals aren't automatons?

you'll recognise that that they feel pain and can exhibit signs of what we'd call pleasure when well treated or the like?

will you accept those points?

or is that anthropomorphic?

now i;m going to do something else and come back!

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Hmm. Depriving the pig of future good experiences by slaughtering it.
Or leaving wild pigs to be killed by disease, grow weak, old and possibly fall prey to animal predators. Culling would be out of the question should the population grow beyond the capacity of the local environment to support them.

It might be a shortlived ethical conundrum of course, as those breeds kept for food die out in the wild. I imagine arrible farmers aren't likely to refuse shooting them should they threaten crops. But not eat them, that would be wrong.

That's obviously a caricature of my position. I'm not advocating liberating all farmyard pigs into the wild - I'm not a fuckwit!

 

[el-ahrairah]

I assume we're heading towards a "well why don't you eat them" question?

nope, though that is a good question - the distinction between pet animal and food animal is a curious one and i have never in my life been able to understand why someone can distinguish so strongly between the two. i always assumed my angy vegetarianism was due to growing up in a house full of animals.

as an aside, i'm in a gerbil group on facebook and there's a little girl in there with a sick pet gerbil whose parents won't let her take it to the vet because its a rodent. they're wealthy enough, it's not the money, apparently, but they don't think anything smaller than a rabbit is important enough. imagine making your children watch their beloved pet die slowly and in pain because you don't think it deserves anything else.

really must got now!

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

this first,

so you understand that animals have desires, needs, characters even, that are independent of each other -that each e.g. dog has a different 'personality' and that animals aren't automatons?

you'll recognise that that they feel pain and can exhibit signs of what we'd call pleasure when well treated or the like?

will you accept those points?

OK, fine. So, as I've said, you provide the animals with as good an environment/life as possible. Then, when the time comes you kill them as swiftly as possible.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

nope, though that is a good question - the distinction between pet animal and food animal is a curious one and i have never in my life been able to understand why someone can distinguish so strongly between the two.

*shrugs* I can, quite easily. As a pet owner you're ultimately taking on a "godlike" role, with ultimate responsibility for its welfare. You make choices as to how that animal will live its life and may one day have to decide to end it. It's not that great a leap to make those choices based on the animal being a source of food rather than companionship.

as an aside, i'm in a gerbil group on facebook and there's a little girl in there with a sick pet gerbil whose parents won't let her take it to the vet because its a rodent. they're wealthy enough, it's not the money, apparently, but they don't think anything smaller than a rabbit is important enough. imagine making your children watch their beloved pet die slowly and in pain because you don't think it deserves anything else.

That's fucking awful

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I don't view feeding myself, or the love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it as a minor interest. I think it's a fundamental part of us.

As for that allowing atrocities - I've stated several times that I'd be happy to see the back of a huge swathe of farming practices.

I've acknowledged that you personally don't like those practices but what I'm suggesting is that your attitude to animals helps to perpetuate them nevertheless because of the limited weight you attach to animal interests. For example, if you think you can kill an animal because of your 'love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it' then a poor person who cannot afford to buy free range or organic meat* can easily also say their 'love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it' cannot be trumped by the interests of a 'mere' pig or chicken or whatever not suffering in intensive farming. Under your framework, that objection is entirely justified.

The point is that for all of us there is an alternative: there's an amazing variety of plant-based food sources that can form a healthy, cheap and delicious diet and that doesn't involve the direct infliction of death and suffering on animals. It's such a non-brainer, I really hope that one day we'll collectively come to our senses as a species on this matter!


* and these are not at all guarantees of good animal welfare imo

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I've acknowledged that you personally don't like those practices but what I'm suggesting is that your attitude to animals helps to perpetuate them nevertheless because of the limited weight you attach to animal interests. For example, if you think you can kill an animal because of your 'love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it' then a poor person who cannot afford to buy free range or organic meat* can easily also say their 'love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it' cannot be trumped by the interests of a 'mere' pig or chicken or whatever not suffering in intensive farming. Under your framework, that objection is entirely justified.

Which brings us (as usual) to an argument against a capitalist system that can make a factory chicken, shipped from a farm on the other side of the country, cheaper than one from a local organic farm. It's not an argument against eating the chicken though.

The point is that for all of us there is an alternative: there's an amazing variety of plant-based food sources that can form a healthy, cheap and delicious diet

By definition it's a diet that's limited in terms of tastes available to it. Not one I'm prepared to go for I'm afraid.

 

[joustmaster]

You see, I'd prefer that all animals have a better life before being killed for food. But if they don't, I'm not too fussed.

The dog thing is interesting. I have known:
Pet dogs that are loved and live in a house and sleep on a bed.
Working dogs that live outside in a cage and get shot if not working well enough.
And have seen, and eaten, dogs for food.

I'm happy with all three situations.

 

[sleaterkinney]

no they're not.

Yes they are, it's the law. The only exemption is for religious reasons and even then the vast majority are unconscious.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...uNN8hCl_42HZ1rw&bvm=bv.73231344,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

[sleaterkinney]

nope, though that is a good question - the distinction between pet animal and food animal is a curious one and i have never in my life been able to understand why someone can distinguish so strongly between the two. i always assumed my angy vegetarianism was due to growing up in a house full of animals.

No, we had cats and dogs growing up. You don't get attached to farm animals as easily and vice versa.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is premised upon a false dichotomy between 'reason' and 'emotion'. Surely you've read Damasio LBJ?

I have and his point would be that we need emotion to think to consider and,crucially, to decide between conflicting ideas, actions or opinions.

I agree that the dichotomy between reason and emotion is false. But i said logic and by that I meant the thing that a computer can work with. Computers are great at sums, shit at making decisions. And I'm not sure a computer could do morality. To do morality you have to feel.

 

[sleaterkinney]

this first,

so you understand that animals have desires, needs, characters even, that are independent of each other -that each e.g. dog has a different 'personality' and that animals aren't automatons?

you'll recognise that that they feel pain and can exhibit signs of what we'd call pleasure when well treated or the like?

will you accept those points?

or is that anthropomorphic?

It's totally anthropomorphic, dogs have "characters" because they've become socialised through interaction with humans down the millennia. Cattle do not. Don't project your experiences of pets onto all animals.