I shared this link on Facebook, semi-jokingly stating that the gauntlet had been thrown down. Though a couple random people made comments, the primary debate was between my brother and I. Who's right?
____________________________________________________________________
Brother:
I think this question is being approached from the wrong direction. Being a freedom loving American, the question should always be posed the other way. Tell me why it is unethical? I should be able to do what I want so long as there is not some compelling reason for me not to such as it infringes upon others or is unethical in some way.Me:
Well, I think the point is that vegetarians/vegans and even some meat-eaters have given a plethora of reasons as to why it's bad (aka, unnecessary and unethical). So they want the devout meat-eaters to say why it is. What is the compelling, good reason to eat meat.. since survival no longer depends on it, and that we would actually have a larger food supply with higher energy output if we ate the grains/vegetables ourselves; instead of feeding it to livestock. That, and the whole not killing bit. ;-) The one small example I can think of is overpopulation.. but we wouldn't really have that problem with most animals, since we have to specifically breed them for our use. But, just for the sake of argument, eating meat is ethical because we are designed as omnivores. Whether you believe we are designed by a higher power or by evolution, we aren't herbivores by nature. To claim we should not eat meat is to essentially claim that taking another creature's life for nourishment is somehow unethical and we should deny that part of our nature. If that is the case, then we must be ethically bound to prevent such acts from taking place in the animal kingdom as well. In order to accomplish this task we have to stop all predators, not just people. To do that we will have to kill off things like lions, tigers, bears, snakes, alligators, spiders, etc. But how can we ethically do this if the point is to not take the life of another creature?
Naturally if we accomplished such a thing, either by killing off predators or some other means we would essentially set up every species on the planet for overpopulation and starvation. Not exactly a bright outlook.
In the end, a predator has a place in the cycle of life. I am just happy to be at the top of the food chain and see no reason to cry about it.
But we claim to be superior (top of the food chain), due to our developed brains... the very thing that separates us from the other animals that hunt and eat at will. We have the gift of thought, compassion, etc. It is what makes us human (and to you, what makes us 'higher' on the food chain), that makes it an option for us. Just because it is an option not to eat meat certainly doesn't make it unethical to do so. I've yet to see a single argument that you speak of when you say "vegetarians/vegans and even some meat-eaters have given a plethora of reasons as to why it's bad" that has any merit. I'll grant you that perhaps some of the methods are unethical to some degree, but I don't see any reason why the root of the issue, killing an animal for food, is unethical and I never have. And evolution generally lags behind. Since you have to have a gradual change (through genetic mutation), that allows equal or more to survive with the mutation. So, in this case, if fewer people eat meat, or some freaks with small or no 'meat-eating' teeth, survive just as long or longer than the meat-eaters.. we in theory, are evolving into that. The whole point is, we have a choice. We can eat in a way that provides MORE food, and MORE energy, with no pain. Or choose one that causes more pollution, and an endless supply of pain. To me, that sounds much less ethical, especially when there is no need for survival. Most meat-eaters agree it can be cruel.. which is why most wouldn't kill their own meat. And if you talk about where their meat came from, they can't eat their meal. It's a psychological disconnect.
I'm glad you mentioned the psychological disconnect. I was typing the following post as yours came through: At the core of this is that a person no longer has to kill the animal they will eat. This accomplishes a few things. It separates people from a fundamental part of life, death. Because we no longer kill our own food we are unnaturally separated from the act. This allows a mental disconnect from the source of our food and we can now eat meat without having to bother outselves with the source. This can drive a mind to either the irrational belief that the act of killing is wrong or to a fascination with the act of killing because it is behind closed doors and unavailable to us. If history has shown us anything it is that an extreme belief at either end of the spectrum is unhealthy and counterproductive.
There is a definite disconnect.. but it was me becoming aware that I had that disconnect that made me realize I shouldn't eat meat anymore. If I wasn't willing to slaughter the animal myself, I have no right to eat it. And there's fundamentally no difference to me.. between a pig, and Bristow (our dog).. in terms of intelligence, innocence, value, and capacity to live long, healthy, happy lives. And if someone tried to slaughter Bristow, I wouldn't take it well at all. I would classify it, clearly, as unethical and cruel. People get arrested for doing to their pets, what would just be the beginning stages of raising and slaughtering a farm animal involves. Though, in some cultures.. it would be perfectly normal to slaughter her for her meat and/or her fur. Ummm.. no thanks. :-P
Lt Col Dave Grossman, an expert in the psychology of killing, speaks about this at length in his book, aptly titled "On Killing". The primary focus of this book is the psychological barrier humans have to killing a member of their own species and how circumstances can overcome that resistance. One of the things he speaks about is the insulation modern society has between the average member and the natural occurence of death.From "On Killing":
"Slaughterhouses and refrigeration insulated us from the necessity of killing our own food animals. Modern medicine began to cure diseases, and it became increasingly rare for us to die in the youth and prime of our lives, and nursing homes, hospitals, and mortuaries insulated us from the death of the elderly. Children began to grow up having never truly understood where their food came from, and suddenly Western civilization seemed to have decided that killing, killing anything at all, was increasingly hidden, private, mysterious, frightening, and dirty."
And, studies show that we live longer: http://
Grossman goes on to talk about the effect of this disconnect ranging from "the trivial to the bizarre" and cites things like animal rights activists breaking into labs and destroying life saving research, which they have benefitted from, and saying such crazy things as "If the death of one rat cured all diseases it wouldn't make any difference to me. In the scheme of life, we're all equal." Another animal rights activist compared chickens with jews stating, "Six million people died in concetration camps but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses." as if they were even remotely comparable. He hypothesizes that this diconnect is a driving force behind the appetite our society has for violence, much the way hiding and repressing sexuality can lead to all manner of deviant conduct so can hiding and repressing the natural act of killing and death lead to deviant behavior in such areas. He calls it a "bizarre, pathological dichotomy of simultaneous repression and obsession with violence." Ah.. but we've already discussed animal research.. on which, we're at least not on polar opposites.Still, we're getting way off topic. The concept of this essay contest is to factor in ethics. JUST ethics. Saying, "It's what we've always done." is not strong ethical ground. Such a statement has been used to defend very destructive behaviors in human history.
And at its core, I don't believe raising animals in small pens to later painfully slaughter them, can be defined, in any way as ethical. Delicious? Yes. Normal? So far. But, ethical? No.
Though, I am looking forward to any essays with concepts I may not have thought of before.
Let me ask you this, if it is unethical to kill an animal for food is it also unethical to kill an animal for sanitation? Cities would become uninhabitable if we did not kill millions of mice and rats each year. In fact, the food you prefer that provides more energy and is healthier requires significant pest control measures. Is killing those animals in that context different? If yes, then why? If not, then where do you draw the line? At mammals? Anything but insects? To include insects and say that swatting a fly or a mosquito is also unethical? It's even more shakey ground if you DO factor in religion (since you brought up evolution vs creation earlier). Some believe God made animals for our use. Some don't think that meant for eating. Some religions don't eat pork. Some don't eat beef. And some only eat fish on Fridays. And some don't eat meat for certain religious ceremony/celebration days. The logic behind any of that, I don't completely understand. I only mentioned religion to make the point that it doesn't matter which reason you think we are designed to eat meat. To me, the origin of our nature is irrelevent in this discussion. All that matters is that it is, in fact, part of our nature. Aaron, can you not see the difference in that one is necessary for our survival (sooooome animal testing, pest control), and the other isn't (eating meat). And the latter actually reduces our life span according to several studies. So, we're kind of going out of our ways to kill ourselves, at the expense of animals. Just on logic alone, that makes no sense.Again, I know you eat meat.. and probably always will.. The question I think they're trying to ask is why? What is the true, hard, compelling reason.. beyond "We just do." or "We just want to."? Which so far, is pretty much your answer.
And to address you saying most won't kill their own food, you are right and I consider that a weakness and not something to be proud of. I've killed animals that I ate and doing so provided a better understanding of my place within the broad scheme of things. And I've pointed out several reasons why it is healthier, from a psychological perspective, for us to be willing to kill for food. You just glossed over them. I don't buy that it's healthier for me to kill something.. that is actually more harmful to my health if I consume it. And still does not go to the ethical matter in any way. Is eating meat, ethical? Is it the most moral option? I don't think anything you've said has addressed that. I suppose the best reason is that if we distance ourselves successfully (I don't think it is possible, but for the sake of argument lets say we can) from killing to the point where we reach some utopia of no killing and eating only plants and everyone is happy, another race of man that doesn't subscribe to such philosophies will just kill us off and build a meat packing facility on our land. ;) You say I haven't addresssed why eating meat is morally superior. Ok, I don't think it is morally superior. I just don't think not eating meat is morally superior either. To me, my ethics would be somewhere in the scheme of "Harm none that bring no harm to me." Fairly simple. Don't kill anything that's not trying to, or has very little risk of accidentally killing me. So to me, that would make killing for the purposes of eating meat (that I don't need to survive).. unethical. That's the point, I suppose. It depends on what your "ethics of meat-eating" statement is. I suspect yours is something like, "Eat anything that is delicious, that doesn't live in my house. And add bacon." lol Why can't I eat something that lives in my house? LOL! I was implying pets.. I hope you never get hungry enough to eat Logan (brother's dog).. In truth, there really is no way to make a compelling argument either way based only on "ethics" since ethics are defined as a set of moral principles relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct. Ethics are relative and trying to make factual arguments about something so subjective is fairly pointless. But so much fun! Most everything in life that we argue about comes down to right and wrong.. which essentially, are broad "ethics." The simplest explanation:Eating meat isn't unethical, so it must be ethical.
Simple process of elimination.
For me, it comes down to a belief that animals are sentient beings, that experience both pleasure and pain, and therefore should be entitled, at a minimum, to the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering. In that, I take more issue with how many of the animals are raised, than with the actual slaughtering (though some of the methods are downright abhorrent). In theory, that's why I take less issue with hunters. Some hunters today, and most of long ago, tended to keep a high respect for the animals they hunted and consumed. They used every part of the animal they could, and made every attempt to keep the animal from suffering. That concept, is one that has completely gotten lost somewhere.
It isn't lost with hunters, it is lost with all the people who think killing is icky.As I mentioned, it is the distance from the killing that has lead us down a path where people gravitate to one extreme or the other. That is psychologically unhealthy.
Eh.. I know some hunters that just hunt for sport and don't even take the body. Those folk, I don't respect so much. Nor would I.Sarah:
(a friend of mine) Wow when you two go at it you go. Interesting points of view brought up, but something to keep in mind is not all animal operations are horrible, cruel places like the few "bad eggs" that are splashed around on the Internet. And as strong a view as if it's living it shouldn't die would lead to fruititerians because vegetables are living plants before being harvested. Just because they aren't a higher life form do they deserve to die instead of just living in the field?
Oh, I know that not all farms are the "factory farm" that has become a huge buzz word. But at the end of the day, there just is really no humane way to raise that many livestock in a small area, and then slaughter it. Even death row inmates (that have clearly earned their death), typically get a nice round of injections to numb everything first. Very few still get the chair, and the guillotine is long gone.. because in general, the populace considers it inhumane (too painful, and not necessary). But it is, essentially, what we still do to our animals. Except for the ones we actually love. Our pets, we still have put to sleep. We don't take in our dogs that have cancer, and the vet cuts their heads off or electrocutes them. Them 'kindly' put them to sleep, so they no longer have to suffer. Personally, I just believe all animals deserve the dignity and freedom from suffering that we allow the specific animals we deem as "pets."As for not killing plants, I can't help but to point out the obvious difference. We have no reason to believe that plants have a brain, or central nervous system. Therefore, no conscious awareness.. and no sense of pain.
And lastly, eating plants are actually NECESSARY for our survival. We actually can not live on a diet of meat alone. We can, however, live on a diet of plants alone. In fact, for most of human history, we have lived on a vegetarian or near-vegetarian diet. MOST of the world still does. It's just in the industrialized countries, in the last hundred years or so, that we've created a system that makes meat abundantly available at all times.
And to clarify, plants DO have a complex system that adapts to weather and such. But they do not feel or send pain signals or experience fear. It would be pointless for a plant to have that capability. Animals have it so they can avoid those things for survival. A plant, obviously, has no reason for a survival mechanism like "fight or flight."______________________________________________________
Please forgive the typos. But who has the most sound argument? (if either of us do)
No comments:
Post a Comment