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

[littlebabyjesus]

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 would go further than that. The comparison with slavery as suggested here is pretty offensive.

 

[8ball]

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.

Yeah, there was a bit there - bad speed-reading on my part.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

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.

The comparison wasn't between the two acts, the comparison was between the justification behind those acts.

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.

What other argument is there?

 

[8ball]

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.

I think there are a lot of traps to fall into if you take that route. It may be interesting to start from the assumption that our ethical obligations to plants are the same, but I'm not sure it's the most effective way of approaching the issue.

 

[8ball]

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

No. Basic biology has nothing to say about the 'interests' of members of any particular species.

 

[TruXta]

Even if miraculously everyone agreed that we should stop eating meat right now, there'd still be the question of what to do with the billions of animals currently being reared for consumption. Would it be more ethical to slaughter them all right away or let them live out their lives, necessitating a lot of food production that could otherwise be used for people?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I think there are a lot of traps to fall into if you take that route. It may be interesting to start from the assumption that our ethical obligations to plants are the same, but I'm not sure it's the most effective way of approaching the issue.

why not?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

No. Basic biology has nothing to say about the 'interests' of members of any particular species.

How can you have interests if you're not alive?

 

[8ball]

why not?

Because we start off burdened by a great many unjustifed assumptions, dumbly follow where they lead, and then have to work backwards in order to prune the massive logical tree of half-assed conclusions.

 

[andysays]

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?

Again. it's about the quality of the argument - it's not enough to simply say that something is bad, you have to actually say why.

I suggest that we need a different argument or reason to justify ethical pronouncements about human/animal behaviour than the ones we use to pronounce on human/human behaviour, which is why all the stuff about slavery etc is utterly irrelevant here as far as I'm concerned.

I also note that arguments which fail to make the distinction between the two classes of behaviour and ethics frequently run the risk of ignoring what is special or particular about humanity and can (and I'm not saying that anyone here is explicitly or deliberately doing this) end up being anti-human.

And as I've pointed out before, the very fact that this thread, ostensibly about human health, has gone off on to this huge tangent about the ethics of killing animals for meat suggests that many people don't really care that much about the issue of human health - it's easier to simply dismiss all those meat eaters as bad people who, presumably, deserve to be unhealthy and die early.

 

[Enviro]

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

It's too basic. If all animals fulfilled their ongoing requirement of being alive 'in order to maintain the satisfaction of their interests' then we'd end up in a situation that was unsustainable due to the number of living entities consuming all the food and drinking all the water...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How can you have interests if you're not alive?

What interests are you talking about here, though? There are species of eagle that always produce two eggs, and the second chick is invariably pecked to death by its elder sibling a few days after hatching. This second chick is an insurance policy in case the first egg doesn't develop properly. If the first chick didn't peck the second one to death, it is likely that neither would survive to fledge. So what are the second chick's interests here?

There are limits imo to the gene-centred approach, but one biological way to look at this is to look at how it explains evolution from the point of view of genes. The chick shares 50 per cent of its genetic material with its sibling, so it can be said to be in its 'genetic interest' to be pecked to death so that its sibling has a chance of survival. Applying this to domestic livestock, it might be in an animal's genetic interest to be eaten and enjoyed so that the next generation is reared.

In short, I don't think biology can answer this kind of question.

 

[TruXta]

Humans aren't special.

 

[8ball]

How can you have interests if you're not alive?

Humans can have interests that override their interest in being alive, such as anyone who has ever died for any cause, or for another person. Anything we say about an animal's 'interests' needs to be justified or is mere projection.

As it happens, I'm inclined to think the 'being alive' case is a pretty persuasive one when you make it in terms of animals (I think the degree of embedded anthropomorphism is probably low there). I'm less convinced about arguments relating to autonomy, self-determination and non-instrumentalism as a human would understand these things.

 

[8ball]

Humans aren't special.

Best argument for eating meat so far.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Because we start off burdened by a great many unjustifed assumptions, dumbly follow where they lead, and then have to work backwards in order to prune the massive logical tree of half-assed conclusions.

The whole point is to work out which assumptions are justified and which are not.

 

[xenon]

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.

TBF he did say in his scenario, there were alternatives to Fido.

His scenario actually demonstrates how culturally embedded meat eating is. We don't tend to eat dogs in the UK but there is nothing inherently wrong with eating dog, over any other meat. If he'd said pet pig rather than a dog, he'd have a slightly more focussed argument. But the objection would chiefly be that he has eaten something beloved by another human. Not that eating the animal itself is morally wrong.

 

[8ball]

The whole point is to work out which assumptions are justified and which are not.

In that case you're not starting from those assumptions. You are starting before them.

 

[Enviro]

Humans aren't special.

Name another species which has a capability for language (to the extent that it allows storage of information over 1000's of years) even approaching that of humans?

Don't get me wrong, on one level I believe we are very much the same as all other living entities, but on another level, do we not have capabilities far beyond that of any other species inhabiting Earth in terms of our potential and abilities?

 

[8ball]

TBF he did say in his scenario, there were alternatives to Fido.

Fair enough, from the 'homeless and hungry' but I inferred a certain degree of desperation. I guess the question would be over how desperate do things have to get before that would be justified.

 

[andysays]

I would go further than that. The comparison with slavery as suggested here is pretty offensive.

TBH it's too ridiculous for me to actually find it offensive.

 

[TruXta]

Name another species which has a capability for language (to the extent that it allows storage of information over 1000's of years) even approaching that of humans?

Don't get me wrong, on one level I believe we are very much the same as all other living entities, but on another level, do we not have capabilities far beyond that of any other species inhabiting Earth in terms of our potential and abilities?

What makes that special in ethical terms? And how does that relate to us eating meat or not?

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Again. it's about the quality of the argument - it's not enough to simply say that something is bad, you have to actually say why.

I suggest that we need a different argument or reason to justify ethical pronouncements about human/animal behaviour than the ones we use to pronounce on human/human behaviour, which is why all the stuff about slavery etc is utterly irrelevant here as far as I'm concerned.

I also note that arguments which fail to make the distinction between the two classes of behaviour and ethics frequently run the risk of ignoring what is special or particular about humanity and can (and I'm not saying that anyone here is explicitly or deliberately doing this) end up being anti-human.

And as I've pointed out before, the very fact that this thread, ostensibly about human health, has gone off on to this huge tangent about the ethics of killing animals for meat suggests that many people don't really care that much about the issue of human health - it's easier to simply dismiss all those meat eaters as bad people who, presumably, deserve to be unhealthy and die early.

Classic attack on the straw man... I don't believe it's right to kill animals, therefore I believe all humans should die an agonising death... Really?

 

[andysays]

Humans aren't special.

Then why shouldn't we kill and eat animals? - after all, lots of other animals do that, and no one, as far as I can see, is attempting to argue that there's anything unethical there.

Humans are special, at the very least in that they are the only species which actually has a concept of ethics to argue over

 

[TruXta]

Then why shouldn't we kill and eat animals? - after all, lots of other animals do that, and no one, as far as I can see, is attempting to argue that there's anything unethical there.

Humans are special, at the very least in that they are the only species which actually has a concept of ethics to argue over

We should, just like we kill (and very occasionally eat) humans. Unless you're a 100% pacifist surely one can tolerate the murder of animals the same way we tolerate the murder of humans.

 

[andysays]

Classic attack on the straw man... I don't believe it's right to kill animals, therefore I believe all humans should die an agonising death... Really?

and that again is too ridiculous a reduction and distortion of what I said for me to find it offensive...

 

[8ball]

Again. it's about the quality of the argument - it's not enough to simply say that something is bad, you have to actually say why.

I suggest that we need a different argument or reason to justify ethical pronouncements about human/animal behaviour than the ones we use to pronounce on human/human behaviour, which is why all the stuff about slavery etc is utterly irrelevant here as far as I'm concerned.

I also note that arguments which fail to make the distinction between the two classes of behaviour and ethics frequently run the risk of ignoring what is special or particular about humanity and can (and I'm not saying that anyone here is explicitly or deliberately doing this) end up being anti-human.

And as I've pointed out before, the very fact that this thread, ostensibly about human health, has gone off on to this huge tangent about the ethics of killing animals for meat suggests that many people don't really care that much about the issue of human health - it's easier to simply dismiss all those meat eaters as bad people who, presumably, deserve to be unhealthy and die early.

There's plenty of agreement that we need to be careful about the limits of where ethical considerations apply in terms of the species involved, and just about everyone agrees a like-for-like comparison with slavery cuts no mustard.

And this thread is actually about a fluff story ostensibly about human health which can be happily ignored since it is of little or no value so I see no reason why it shouldn't go off on a tangent about the ethics of killing animals.

 

[Spymaster]

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.

I'd eat my neighbours dog for a laugh if I could get away with it.

 

[andysays]

We should, just like we kill (and very occasionally eat) humans. Unless you're a 100% pacifist surely one can tolerate the murder of animals the same way we tolerate the murder of humans.

What I can't tolerate is the casual use of the word murder to describe killing an animal.

It's a real shame there are a number of people on this thread who are unable or unwilling to recognise the differences, linguistic, legal and ethical, between killing a human and killing an animal.

 

[goldenecitrone]

What I can't tolerate is the casual use of the word murder to describe killing an animal.

It's a real shame there are a number of people on this thread who are unable or unwilling to recognise the differences, linguistic, legal and ethical, between killing a human and killing an animal.

Meat is Manslaughter?