Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists

[littlebabyjesus]

now stop being hysterical!
you are presuming disagreement

I'll kill a million pigs to save my siblings if that's what it takes.

 

[ddraig]

I'll kill a million pigs to save my siblings if that's what it takes.

did you read my post?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I'll kill a million pigs to save my siblings if that's what it takes.

Sounds like the worst action movie ever.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

did you read my post?

I'm not replying to your posts directly. I'm replying to the idea that it is somehow wrong to treat other animals instrumentally, as a means to a human-directed need. I put it to anyone making that argument that it can be very wrong not to use other animals instrumentally.

 

[ddraig]

try not quoting them in your replies then

 

[Dr_Herbz]

You want emotive arguments?

Ok.

My brother and sister are both type 1 diabetics and have been for 40 years plus. Back when they became diabetic, insulin was produced from pigs. Human insulin production was only developed much later.

If humans didn't treat animals instrumentally, I'd have grown up an only child. *

I'll kill the pigs myself if it means saving human lives. I'm afraid a lot of these arguments giving equal weight to animal and human lives are total bullshit, and the consequences of such beliefs are monstrous.

*Mind you, I'd have had my own room, and wouldn't have had to wear my brother's hand-me-downs.

Is there any other way to argue about the ethics of something than with an emotive argument?

What if I was homeless and hungry, and I decided to eat someone's pet dog. Would this be OK, because I had more of a right to live than the dog, or would it be wrong, because I could probably have found an alternative source of food? Where do we draw the line?

Considering we're the most advanced species on the planet, shouldn't we be working towards alleviating the need to kill other animals for our needs, rather than working in the opposite direction? I say 'needs' but it really isn't a need, it's a 'want', because we don't need to eat meat, we just choose to do so because it's a tastier alternative but with the knowledge and technology we have today, we could easily manufacture tasty, nutritious food, with no animal ingredients. Granted, it might cost a little more to do so but isn't that what we should be working towards?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This goes back the the judgement that meat is simply a 'trivial palate preference', rather than a large part of human culture, the result of accumulated knowledge about hunting techniques, husbandry techniques, butchery techniques and cooking techniques. I'm comfortable with eating meat.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Lots of things used to be a large part of human culture. The Catholic church used to be a large part of human culture and just 400 years ago they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake because he refused to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe.
Just because we've been doing something for a long time, doesn't mean we have to stand by it. We do have the ability to change and do things differently.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I'll kill a million pigs to save my siblings if that's what it takes.

Well I would kill a million pigs
And I would kill nine million more
To be the man that killed ten million pigs with my bloody chainsaw
La la la lah...

 

[ska invita]

i cant seem to quote...

but yeah, and war is a human tradition too
weird justification

 

[ddraig]

This goes back the the judgement that meat is simply a 'trivial palate preference', rather than a large part of human culture, the result of accumulated knowledge about hunting techniques, husbandry techniques, butchery techniques and cooking techniques. I'm comfortable with eating meat.

give yourself a pat on the back, go on!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So we now have a comparison of the culture surrounding killing and eating animals with a) slavery, and b) war. That comes after an evaluation of meat-eating as a 'trivial palate preference'.

There is a mess of confusion here.

 

[ddraig]

So we now have a comparison of the culture surrounding killing and eating animals with a) slavery, and b) war. That comes after an evaluation of meat-eating as a 'trivial palate preference'.

There is a mess of confusion here.

stop being a disingenuous prick
people said they are long held human traditions (and it doesn't make them right), no one is comparing them like for like
get a grip

 

[ska invita]

So we now have a comparison of the culture surrounding killing and eating animals with a) slavery, and b) war. That comes after an evaluation of meat-eating as a 'trivial palate preference'.

i never said that - theres a whole spectrum of opinions on the subject, from vegans who do so as a beauty/diet fad to Animal Liberation folk

 

[littlebabyjesus]

stop being a disingenuous prick
people said they are long held human traditions (and it doesn't make them right), no one is comparing them like for like
get a grip

I don't accept that the ethics that deal with human–human interactions, such as those that are relevant to war or slavery, can be extended unproblematically to other animals. The comparison is not useful.

fwiw I didn't justify eating meat by pointing out its embedded nature in culture, but I did question the judgement of such a thing as 'trivial' by doing so.

 

[andysays]

So we've now had examples of human slavery, war, and burning people at the stake brought up to (somehow, I really don't see how) support the idea that eating meat is unethical.

I think this may be the point in the thread where I point out that, as we all know, Hitler was a vegetarian...

 

[8ball]

stop being a disingenuous prick
people said they are long held human traditions (and it doesn't make them right), no one is comparing them like for like
get a grip

I think ddraig is right here - the comparisons with war and slavery were just references to bad things that are embedded in human culture and that many agree we would be better off without. It was just making the point that being a long-held tradition, in and of itself, should not be taken to add significant moral value to a practice.

Which could be argued over, but I don't think it is confused.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

So we now have a comparison of the culture surrounding killing and eating animals with a) slavery, and b) war. That comes after an evaluation of meat-eating as a 'trivial palate preference'.

There is a mess of confusion here.

The confusion is with you. People aren't drawing direct comparisons with slavery and war, they're merely pointing out that the analytic structure of the arguments advanced in favour of meat eating could equally apply to these things, suggesting that those arguments can't do the work you want them to. And yes, the pleasure derived from eating meat in advanced societies is a trivial interest in contrast to the interest the animal has in staying alive, because all of the animal's interests are dependent upon being alive.

 

[ddraig]

woot! almost full house

I don't accept that the ethics that deal with human–human interactions, such as those that are relevant to war or slavery, can be extended unproblematically to other animals. The comparison is not useful.

fwiw I didn't justify eating meat by pointing out its embedded nature in culture, but I did question the judgement of such a thing as 'trivial' by doing so.

so you are still sitting there with fingers in ears (or over eyes) ignoring posts??
i never used to get why posters had such an issue with your style but it now makes more sense

 

[ddraig]

I think ddraig is right here - the comparisons with war and slavery were just references to bad things that are embedded in human culture and that many agree we would be better off without. It was just making the point that being a long-held tradition, in and of itself, should not be taken to add significant moral value to a practice.

Which could be argued over, but I don't think it is confused.

thankyou

 

[ska invita]

So we've now had examples of human slavery, war, and burning people at the stake brought up to (somehow, I really don't see how) support the idea that eating meat is unethical.

I think this may be the point in the thread where I point out that, as we all know, Hitler was a vegetarian...

no hitler wasnt

its to do with killing mammals, and your opinion on hierarchies of life / where to draw the line on killing other mammals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism etc

ive got a meat eating friend who I think said it best when he said that there is no good argument for eating meat, all the logical argument is against it, but he's going to do it anyway.

 

[8ball]

And yes, the pleasure derived from eating meat in advanced societies is a trivial interest in contrast to the interest the animal has in staying alive, because all of the animal's interests are dependent upon being alive.

I think the bit before the second comma is what the whole argument centres on (and I personally think it has some merit, depending on the animal involved perhaps) though I suspect after the second comma there may be some embedded anthropomorphism that is worth examining.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think ddraig is right here - the comparisons with war and slavery were just references to bad things that are embedded in human culture and that many agree we would be better off without. It was just making the point that being a long-held tradition, in and of itself, should not be taken to add significant moral value to a practice.

Which could be argued over, but I don't think it is confused.

That's not quite true. If you re-read the post bringing up slavery, you will see that it is making a very direct comparison, suggesting equivalences.

 

[iROBOT]

I think this may be the point in the thread where I point out that, as we all know, Hitler was a vegetarian...

He also loved dogs, therefore (to take the implied logic in your post) all dog lovers are evil.

That makes sense.

(Hitler didn’t give a toss about animal welfare, he wanted to produce a master race and he knew eating meat in the quantities that most people do is not very conducive to building a strong "volk")

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I think the bit before the second comma is what the whole argument centres on (and I personally think it has some merit, depending on the animal involved perhaps) though I suspect after the second comma there may be some embedded anthropomorphism that is worth examining.

I'm not sure it is anthropomorphism, its basic biology isn't it?

 

[andysays]

I think ddraig is right here - the comparisons with war and slavery were just references to bad things that are embedded in human culture and that many agree we would be better off without. It was just making the point that being a long-held tradition, in and of itself, should not be taken to add significant moral value to a practice.

Which could be argued over, but I don't think it is confused.

You know, if the only arguments people had been able to muster against, for instance, slavery was that it was a "bad thing", then I suspect slavery would still be as widespread in human practice as it once was.

Similarly, if all that vegetarians can come up with to support their position is that it's a "bad thing" (and that is really all anyone has said here) then I'm confident that meat eating will also be a fairly widespread part of human practice for some time to come.

 

[8ball]

What if I was homeless and hungry, and I decided to eat someone's pet dog. Would this be OK, because I had more of a right to live than the dog, or would it be wrong, because I could probably have found an alternative source of food? Where do we draw the line?

I think if you were homeless and starving and the only possible thing left available to you to eat was someone's pet dog, then yes, you would be justified.

 

[8ball]

You know, if the only arguments people had been able to muster against, for instance, slavery was that it was a "bad thing", then I suspect slavery would still be as widespread in human practice as it once was.

Similarly, if all that vegetarians can come up with to support their position is that it's a "bad thing" (and that is really all anyone has said here) then I'm confident that meat eating will also be a fairly widespread part of human practice for some time to come.

I haven't the foggiest where you are going with this. Aren't all of these arguments based on particular actions being 'bad'? If not, what criteria are you using?

 

[8ball]

He also loved dogs, therefore (to take the implied logic in your post) all dog lovers are evil.

That wasn't a serious point - andysays was just satirising the quality of some of the arguments on this thread.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I don't accept that the ethics that deal with human–human interactions, such as those that are relevant to war or slavery, can be extended unproblematically to other animals. The comparison is not useful.

Why do you think the comparison is not useful? It might be that there are problems in straightforwardly applying intra-species ethics to inter-species cases, but it might also be problematic to assume that ethical norms in relation to non-human animals and entirely distinct from the ethical norms that govern the relations between humans. I think its interesting to start from the assumption that the ethical obligations to all animals are the same and then think about what factors might justify differential standards. FWIW i think there clearly are differential standards but they are not so great as to justify meat eating in the vast majority of cases.