Are the ethics of eating meat fundamentally changed by the way it comes to the table?
June 20, 2009 2:17 PM Subscribe
Querying the hive mind: In your opinion, is it more ethical to eat humanely raised and killed animals? Does the way an animal is treated and killed change the ethical question of whether it's ethical to eat meat in the first place? I'm doing some research on this and wanted some opinions or relevant links that might help. Thanks in advance!
You might be interested in the writings of Princeton U ethicist Peter Singer (who I believe hasn't made up his mind on this specific topic, but generally holds that eating meat is unethical) and of course, Michael Pollan, specifically the article he wrote for the NY Times on the beef industry back in 2002. Jeffrey Steingarten wrote an essay on this topic in Men's Vogue that was at: http://www.mensvogue.com/food/articles/2006/08/21/foie_gras but I can't find it any more.
Here was his big point:
Although they neglected to nominate me for sainthood in the last go-around, I do try to follow a few modest practices. I don’t eat animals that were raised or slaughtered chemically or inhumanely, preferring animals that grew up in pastures and fields, were cared for individually and by hand, and were not given growth hormones or unnecessary antibiotics. I don’t eat veal from anemic calves confined in the darkness of a crate that keeps their meat desirably pale. I haven’t eaten supermarket pork for the past ten years, except at important Southern BBQ events. Or eggs laid by battery hens. Or chickens on growth hormones raised by the thousands on the floors of barns covered with several weeks of their own waste—except when they have been fried by an incontestable master. I don’t eat meat that doesn’t matter—crumbled onto a pizza or scattered over a slimy salad or cooked to cardboard grayness and wedged between two buns. Meat and fowl of the highest quality are extremely expensive, and so I can’t afford a great quantity of them. This cuts down on the volume of slaughter for which I’m responsible, as does my attempt not to waste animal flesh. That is how I’ve made my peace with slaughter.
Pollan quotes a lot from Wendell Berry and Joel Salatin, both farmers, but also both writers on issues of animal consumption ethics. I think Berry is, but I can't remember exactly for sure. I know I've read Salatin writing on it, perhaps in columns in Stockman Grass Farmer? I can't remember but Salatin has definitely written his views on this a lot, from a completely different perspective than say Singer. Singer's ethics start from this hyper-utilitarian place, Salatin is a deeply committed Christian.
posted by jeb at 2:26 PM on June 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
Here was his big point:
Although they neglected to nominate me for sainthood in the last go-around, I do try to follow a few modest practices. I don’t eat animals that were raised or slaughtered chemically or inhumanely, preferring animals that grew up in pastures and fields, were cared for individually and by hand, and were not given growth hormones or unnecessary antibiotics. I don’t eat veal from anemic calves confined in the darkness of a crate that keeps their meat desirably pale. I haven’t eaten supermarket pork for the past ten years, except at important Southern BBQ events. Or eggs laid by battery hens. Or chickens on growth hormones raised by the thousands on the floors of barns covered with several weeks of their own waste—except when they have been fried by an incontestable master. I don’t eat meat that doesn’t matter—crumbled onto a pizza or scattered over a slimy salad or cooked to cardboard grayness and wedged between two buns. Meat and fowl of the highest quality are extremely expensive, and so I can’t afford a great quantity of them. This cuts down on the volume of slaughter for which I’m responsible, as does my attempt not to waste animal flesh. That is how I’ve made my peace with slaughter.
Pollan quotes a lot from Wendell Berry and Joel Salatin, both farmers, but also both writers on issues of animal consumption ethics. I think Berry is, but I can't remember exactly for sure. I know I've read Salatin writing on it, perhaps in columns in Stockman Grass Farmer? I can't remember but Salatin has definitely written his views on this a lot, from a completely different perspective than say Singer. Singer's ethics start from this hyper-utilitarian place, Salatin is a deeply committed Christian.
posted by jeb at 2:26 PM on June 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
Best answer: I feel that perhaps I am missing something about your question.
Flunkie-- I think what the OP is getting is that some people hold that we have no ethical responsibility to animals, they are food source to us. We kill and eat them. Fine. Others hold that we have no ethical priviledge other living things and eating them is slaughter, no matter what.
I think what the poster is looking for is arguments about in-between areas. Some people believe that raising certain animals and subjecting them to a life of animal torture, then killing them for food is unethical, but that raising domesticated animals in such a way that the domestic animal experiences "Pig-ness" or something, whatever the pig equivalent of 'joy' is (behaving 'like a pig in shit' I imagine), and then killing them for food is ethically defensible. Generally these folks argue that (a) some are entitled to some degree of human-like consideration of the quality of their lives, there are naturally arguments about where you'd draw the line but the easy cases would be certainly chimps, probably not mussels (b) these animals experience some emotional states like pain, fear, pleasure, contentment, anxiety, stress, and that looking at whether you're increasing or decreasing the net animal contentment in the world is a valid way of making an ethical choice about eating.
Some people naturally reject this whole line of thinking, but I think that's what the poster's getting at.
posted by jeb at 2:31 PM on June 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
Flunkie-- I think what the OP is getting is that some people hold that we have no ethical responsibility to animals, they are food source to us. We kill and eat them. Fine. Others hold that we have no ethical priviledge other living things and eating them is slaughter, no matter what.
I think what the poster is looking for is arguments about in-between areas. Some people believe that raising certain animals and subjecting them to a life of animal torture, then killing them for food is unethical, but that raising domesticated animals in such a way that the domestic animal experiences "Pig-ness" or something, whatever the pig equivalent of 'joy' is (behaving 'like a pig in shit' I imagine), and then killing them for food is ethically defensible. Generally these folks argue that (a) some are entitled to some degree of human-like consideration of the quality of their lives, there are naturally arguments about where you'd draw the line but the easy cases would be certainly chimps, probably not mussels (b) these animals experience some emotional states like pain, fear, pleasure, contentment, anxiety, stress, and that looking at whether you're increasing or decreasing the net animal contentment in the world is a valid way of making an ethical choice about eating.
Some people naturally reject this whole line of thinking, but I think that's what the poster's getting at.
posted by jeb at 2:31 PM on June 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
I like to believe that well treated animals suffer less stress and therefore are tastier to eat. I could be wrong, but what harm if I am?
posted by Elmore at 2:35 PM on June 20, 2009
posted by Elmore at 2:35 PM on June 20, 2009
Best answer: I'd have no problem with requirements that animals be treated reasonably equitably while being raised -- kinda a "golden rule" applied to all life forms -- even if this raises the cost of food dramatically.
I also have no problems with eating them. TANSTAAFL. Food animals can consider their death as their rent, as without the farmer's husbandry they would not have been able to experience life on this planet at all.
posted by @troy at 2:40 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I also have no problems with eating them. TANSTAAFL. Food animals can consider their death as their rent, as without the farmer's husbandry they would not have been able to experience life on this planet at all.
posted by @troy at 2:40 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
As a big meat eater, I've spent a fair bit of time considering what my stance regarding animal treatment is. I've come to the conclusion that I, personally, don't give a damn about animals at all. I don't want to see an animal suffering or being killed, but I wouldn't give up meat and I'm fully aware that many, many animals raised for food are treated in a way I would find distasteful to observe.
I love my pet animals and would go to lengths to protect their lives. I try to give them a life which seems comfortable to me. My attitude doesn't contain any contradictions - in both cases, I'm simply being totally selfish. I enjoy eating meat and I enjoy believing I've made my cats happy. I shamelessly use animals to serve my own ends.
To give you a bit of perspective, I don't think I believe in human rights, either. I basically believe that might makes right, and that if a creature gets the better of another creature by any means, the creature on the losing end essentially had it coming. I don't mean to suggest that if chickens and cows tried harder they'd be better off - but nor do I feel about belonging to the species that has them totally against the wall.
posted by chudmonkey at 2:41 PM on June 20, 2009
I love my pet animals and would go to lengths to protect their lives. I try to give them a life which seems comfortable to me. My attitude doesn't contain any contradictions - in both cases, I'm simply being totally selfish. I enjoy eating meat and I enjoy believing I've made my cats happy. I shamelessly use animals to serve my own ends.
To give you a bit of perspective, I don't think I believe in human rights, either. I basically believe that might makes right, and that if a creature gets the better of another creature by any means, the creature on the losing end essentially had it coming. I don't mean to suggest that if chickens and cows tried harder they'd be better off - but nor do I feel about belonging to the species that has them totally against the wall.
posted by chudmonkey at 2:41 PM on June 20, 2009
The Jewish laws of kashrut (kosher) specifically deal with this question, particularly with respect to how an animal is slaughtered. While you'll find many links about how kosher slaughtering is cruel, the argument of the rabbis -- easy to look up online -- is that kosher slaughter is the most humane way of killing an animal.
I went through a period during which I was keeping kosher but became vegetarian specifically because kosher organic meat is not easily available. I spoke with a rabbi about this beforehand; my understanding was that we were to treat animals with respect, and that most of the meat industry is not particularly concerned with that. Kosher beef does not have to come from a cow that was allowed to graze and not stuff with hormones and antibiotics. But because I was concerned with the issue, and though it had not been discussed by Talmudic scholars, the rabbi I spoke with told me that I probably should not eat meat -- even kosher meat -- unless it was organic, since my understanding of the laws of kashrut prevented it.
So at least one major religion has very particular views about respecting animals, while still eating them in the first place. Maybe you could investigate that in your research.
posted by brina at 2:51 PM on June 20, 2009
I went through a period during which I was keeping kosher but became vegetarian specifically because kosher organic meat is not easily available. I spoke with a rabbi about this beforehand; my understanding was that we were to treat animals with respect, and that most of the meat industry is not particularly concerned with that. Kosher beef does not have to come from a cow that was allowed to graze and not stuff with hormones and antibiotics. But because I was concerned with the issue, and though it had not been discussed by Talmudic scholars, the rabbi I spoke with told me that I probably should not eat meat -- even kosher meat -- unless it was organic, since my understanding of the laws of kashrut prevented it.
So at least one major religion has very particular views about respecting animals, while still eating them in the first place. Maybe you could investigate that in your research.
posted by brina at 2:51 PM on June 20, 2009
In my opinion the animal is being sacrificed for you and it's important to respect that sacrifice by respecting the animal. That means, don't waste it and yes, treat the animal as humanely as possible. Reference stewardship.
posted by txvtchick at 2:52 PM on June 20, 2009
posted by txvtchick at 2:52 PM on June 20, 2009
(I should say it had not been discussed by the ancient Talmudic scholars, not current scholars. I don't know what current scholarly thinking is on this issue; you might look for info within the Conservative movement or the modern Orthodox movement, as both those branches of Judaism keep kosher while accepting and participating in modernity.)
posted by brina at 2:53 PM on June 20, 2009
posted by brina at 2:53 PM on June 20, 2009
Best answer: is it more ethical to eat humanely raised and killed animals?
Only if you believe that animals have intrinsic value that exists separately from any assigned by humans.
My personal opinion is that human beings are predisposed by evolution to engage the world via an anthropocentric lens. As such, any appearance of intrinsic value is illusory.
If you're looking for an ethical argument, you first have to get beyond rather simplistic views such as, "Animals feel pain, and that makes me not want to kill and eat them." I think one has to take a step back and look at the human diet within the context of the larger environment.
For instance, factory farming takes a tremendous toll on the environment. It's polluting and wasteful. Thus you could perch an ethical argument in terms of not eating meat because you don't want to support such damaging practices. Or, eat meat, but insist on local products. You get the idea...
posted by wfrgms at 2:56 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Only if you believe that animals have intrinsic value that exists separately from any assigned by humans.
My personal opinion is that human beings are predisposed by evolution to engage the world via an anthropocentric lens. As such, any appearance of intrinsic value is illusory.
If you're looking for an ethical argument, you first have to get beyond rather simplistic views such as, "Animals feel pain, and that makes me not want to kill and eat them." I think one has to take a step back and look at the human diet within the context of the larger environment.
For instance, factory farming takes a tremendous toll on the environment. It's polluting and wasteful. Thus you could perch an ethical argument in terms of not eating meat because you don't want to support such damaging practices. Or, eat meat, but insist on local products. You get the idea...
posted by wfrgms at 2:56 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Singer is by far the most thoughtful intellectual on this sort of thing. His stance is basically that it's unethical to cause pain to any creature, but only beings with an ongoing sense of self and plans for the future have a right to life. So though in practice a vegetarian (and mostly vegan), he believes it may be moral to eat animals you know were raised and slaughtered (truly) humanely. I think pretty much the same, though it's rather hard to actually know so I live as a hardline vegetarian. Animal Liberation is his signature work on this stuff, for reference.
posted by abcde at 3:00 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by abcde at 3:00 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I have no sophisticated philosophical arguments or links to scholarly essays for you—only my own opinion, after twelve years as an ovo-lacto vegetarian and two as an occasional pescetarian.
Assuming that an animal is slaughtered in a relatively humane way—i.e., as quickly and painlessly as possible—I'm far less concerned with the fact of its death than I am with the circumstances of its life.
Factory farming is brutal and barbaric and completely fucked-up and unnatural. And the vast majority of meat available to me is factory farmed. Even the stuff labeled "free range" and "organic" and so forth is questionable—if you do your research, you'll find that these labels are pretty meaningless. That's why I don't eat meat—not because I believe that eating meat itself is necessarily terrible.
If I had a regular, affordable source of truly free-range, hormone-free, grain-fed chicken, for example, I'd seriously consider eating (some) chicken. Hell, I'd kill it myself.
We're just animals, and animals eat other animals. I have no problem with that. I just have a problem with sadistically torturing them their whole lives prior to eating them.
Just my two cents.
posted by ixohoxi at 3:23 PM on June 20, 2009 [9 favorites]
Assuming that an animal is slaughtered in a relatively humane way—i.e., as quickly and painlessly as possible—I'm far less concerned with the fact of its death than I am with the circumstances of its life.
Factory farming is brutal and barbaric and completely fucked-up and unnatural. And the vast majority of meat available to me is factory farmed. Even the stuff labeled "free range" and "organic" and so forth is questionable—if you do your research, you'll find that these labels are pretty meaningless. That's why I don't eat meat—not because I believe that eating meat itself is necessarily terrible.
If I had a regular, affordable source of truly free-range, hormone-free, grain-fed chicken, for example, I'd seriously consider eating (some) chicken. Hell, I'd kill it myself.
We're just animals, and animals eat other animals. I have no problem with that. I just have a problem with sadistically torturing them their whole lives prior to eating them.
Just my two cents.
posted by ixohoxi at 3:23 PM on June 20, 2009 [9 favorites]
Also: there are ethical considerations beyond the question of the animals' suffering. For example, a meat-based diet requires more fossil fuels, land, and other resources vs. a plant-based diet. Eating lower on the food chain is one big way to reduce one's environmental footprint.
posted by ixohoxi at 3:26 PM on June 20, 2009
posted by ixohoxi at 3:26 PM on June 20, 2009
Best answer: Oh, I just remembered another good anecdote. If you're willing to be generous, you could call it a datapoint.
My ex was really troubled by this issue. She kind of felt like all the abstract reasoning was...perhaps not the best way to approach the issue, and that the real problem was caused by the fact that modern, urban Americans have no direct experience of food agriculture. She was convinced that eating factory farmed animals was unethical for a variety of reasons: animal torture, environmental impact, etc. But she wasn't sure if that meant she had to be a vegan. So what she ended up doing was getting an internship in animal husbandry at a small farm in upstate new york that raises pigs, turkeys, egg chickens, sheep, and meat chickens.
She spent a few months working on the farm, caring for the animals. And then she slaughtered and butchered loads and loads of animals, herself. Slitting turkey's throats and whatnot. Her ultimate conclusion was that she believes it is ok to eat animals who are raised and slaughtered humanely, but this is a huge PITA, even in NYC, so you end up either (a) being a functional vegetarian a lot of the time or (b) acquiring meat you feel comfortable eating basically becomes a hobby. We were lucky because we had her farm connects, we live in Brooklyn, and my aunt raises beef on her farm, super humanely. So basically we would buy a huge assortment of beef from my aunt, and we bought a separate freezer, and we'd keep it in there and mostly eat meat at home. This meant we also ended up developing a lot of random new skills, like cooking weird meats and making sausages and such.
I bring this up because so far we've talked about the Singer utilitarian argument, the Salatin Christian argument, the Jewish argument, the environmental argument, and others. I think this "direct intuitive experience" is another line of thinking to consider.
Anyway, that ended up being good for her, because now she like...makes sausages and stuff for part of her job (she works for/lives at an NPO in Italy that's half sustainable agriculture foundation/half agriturismo I guess is how you'd describe it).
posted by jeb at 3:37 PM on June 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
My ex was really troubled by this issue. She kind of felt like all the abstract reasoning was...perhaps not the best way to approach the issue, and that the real problem was caused by the fact that modern, urban Americans have no direct experience of food agriculture. She was convinced that eating factory farmed animals was unethical for a variety of reasons: animal torture, environmental impact, etc. But she wasn't sure if that meant she had to be a vegan. So what she ended up doing was getting an internship in animal husbandry at a small farm in upstate new york that raises pigs, turkeys, egg chickens, sheep, and meat chickens.
She spent a few months working on the farm, caring for the animals. And then she slaughtered and butchered loads and loads of animals, herself. Slitting turkey's throats and whatnot. Her ultimate conclusion was that she believes it is ok to eat animals who are raised and slaughtered humanely, but this is a huge PITA, even in NYC, so you end up either (a) being a functional vegetarian a lot of the time or (b) acquiring meat you feel comfortable eating basically becomes a hobby. We were lucky because we had her farm connects, we live in Brooklyn, and my aunt raises beef on her farm, super humanely. So basically we would buy a huge assortment of beef from my aunt, and we bought a separate freezer, and we'd keep it in there and mostly eat meat at home. This meant we also ended up developing a lot of random new skills, like cooking weird meats and making sausages and such.
I bring this up because so far we've talked about the Singer utilitarian argument, the Salatin Christian argument, the Jewish argument, the environmental argument, and others. I think this "direct intuitive experience" is another line of thinking to consider.
Anyway, that ended up being good for her, because now she like...makes sausages and stuff for part of her job (she works for/lives at an NPO in Italy that's half sustainable agriculture foundation/half agriturismo I guess is how you'd describe it).
posted by jeb at 3:37 PM on June 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
I don't eat any meat from animals that are not given a decent life. Because I eat eggs from birds raised with compassion, I pay three times the amount I'd pay otherwise, and I pay it gladly, regardless I don't have a lot of money. I don't buy beef at all, or chicken, because I cannot afford the meat of animals that were given a decent life as they passed through this thing, under our stewardship.
I do not have a problem with eating meat -- if I lived thirty miles out of town I'd have a freezer full of deer meat, from deer that I shot and gutted and butchered myself.
Fish, same thing -- either it's fish that have had a life (which I cannot afford) or fish that I've caught.
If I were in charge of things: Everyone who decides to eat meat has to go to where the animals live, to spend at least four to five hours watching all aspects of how these animals are living, and everyone who eats meat butchers meat, once per year. We -- western human beings -- are so far removed from the land that most of us cannot get our heads around the fact of these animals sufferings. And we see meat as 'something that comes in nice plastic-wrapped packaging' rather than what it is. And I believe that one day spent butchering animals and you will know where meat comes from and what it is, and how the animals live.
I'd bet that fifty percent of people would drop meat from their diet.
I'm not totally strung-out on this thing -- when I go to someones home and they are serving meat, they are proud to put it on the table, I eat with them, and enjoy their company. It doesn't stop me from thinking of the animals sufferings though, which are huge. All of my siblings eat meat and don't -- won't -- think twice about it, and they don't want to hear anything about it. At all. And they don't, not from me.
I believe it's one of our larger failings, this horror-show disregard and lack of compassion toward animals that deserve at least a semblence of a life.
posted by dancestoblue at 3:48 PM on June 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
I do not have a problem with eating meat -- if I lived thirty miles out of town I'd have a freezer full of deer meat, from deer that I shot and gutted and butchered myself.
Fish, same thing -- either it's fish that have had a life (which I cannot afford) or fish that I've caught.
If I were in charge of things: Everyone who decides to eat meat has to go to where the animals live, to spend at least four to five hours watching all aspects of how these animals are living, and everyone who eats meat butchers meat, once per year. We -- western human beings -- are so far removed from the land that most of us cannot get our heads around the fact of these animals sufferings. And we see meat as 'something that comes in nice plastic-wrapped packaging' rather than what it is. And I believe that one day spent butchering animals and you will know where meat comes from and what it is, and how the animals live.
I'd bet that fifty percent of people would drop meat from their diet.
I'm not totally strung-out on this thing -- when I go to someones home and they are serving meat, they are proud to put it on the table, I eat with them, and enjoy their company. It doesn't stop me from thinking of the animals sufferings though, which are huge. All of my siblings eat meat and don't -- won't -- think twice about it, and they don't want to hear anything about it. At all. And they don't, not from me.
I believe it's one of our larger failings, this horror-show disregard and lack of compassion toward animals that deserve at least a semblence of a life.
posted by dancestoblue at 3:48 PM on June 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
I try to eat meat that was raised humanely. It's better for the animals, they taste better, are usually healthier for us to eat, and better for the environment. Religious views aside, I don't eat kosher meat because I don't like that method of slaughter.
I was raised by die-hard meat eaters and became a vegetarian for several years in my late teens. Now I try to meet that halfway.
posted by ishotjr at 4:02 PM on June 20, 2009
I was raised by die-hard meat eaters and became a vegetarian for several years in my late teens. Now I try to meet that halfway.
posted by ishotjr at 4:02 PM on June 20, 2009
I've recently made the switch to eating ethically raised meat at home (working on giving it up outside the home, but it's a start). I believe that, even as humans are thinking animals, we are animals and a propensity for enjoying eating meat is understandable. I also don't believe in life after death, and have no problem, morally, with people eating dead animals (or, hell, dead humans, if they wanted). If a dead body can provide a resource, I actually think it's better to use that resource, if that makes any sense. It's the way that animals are raised for meat, the fact that they're essentially tortured, which is problematic for me, as I am concerned with the way that we treat living things. I'm lucky that humanely-raised meat is easily and fairly inexpensively available in my area (Publix seems to be great for that, between their Greenwise line and the fact that they carry applegate farms prepared meats). I feel that supporting companies and farms that raise animals for meat in kind and environmentally responsible ways is a good use of my money.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:13 PM on June 20, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:13 PM on June 20, 2009
I'd bet that fifty percent of people would drop meat from their diet.
I'd bet that the vast majority of people would be suitably horrified and then... get over it. Humans have an enormous capacity to normalise things, and a high incentive to carry on as normal when normal is as convenient and as ingrained as mainstream consumer habits.
I think that what would be very interesting is to look at the dietary habits of people who work in mass-market meat slaughter and prep. My friend is a large animal vet; she worked on lots and lots of farms, and for many years worked at the local abattoir, watching animals killed for two shifts a week. She eats meat.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:15 PM on June 20, 2009
I'd bet that the vast majority of people would be suitably horrified and then... get over it. Humans have an enormous capacity to normalise things, and a high incentive to carry on as normal when normal is as convenient and as ingrained as mainstream consumer habits.
I think that what would be very interesting is to look at the dietary habits of people who work in mass-market meat slaughter and prep. My friend is a large animal vet; she worked on lots and lots of farms, and for many years worked at the local abattoir, watching animals killed for two shifts a week. She eats meat.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:15 PM on June 20, 2009
I think there are degrees of wrongness in eating meat (though I choose not to at all).
Things like foie gras and veal are pretty disturbing to most people, factory farming is slightly less cruel, but still pretty bad and free range stuff still results in the killing of animals for food. Hunting and fishing fall somewhere in there too. It's a continuum, and up to individuals to say where they draw the line.
There is also a pretty persuasive argument that making animal protein is much much more expensive in land and energy costs than producing plant protein, and that eating meat when you don't need to is at least analagous to taking the food off someone elses plate.
I would also argue that using animals as a tool to feed people is pretty speciesist - just because we can outsmart them doesn't mean we should treat them like they were put here exclusively for us to use.
posted by scodger at 4:19 PM on June 20, 2009
Things like foie gras and veal are pretty disturbing to most people, factory farming is slightly less cruel, but still pretty bad and free range stuff still results in the killing of animals for food. Hunting and fishing fall somewhere in there too. It's a continuum, and up to individuals to say where they draw the line.
There is also a pretty persuasive argument that making animal protein is much much more expensive in land and energy costs than producing plant protein, and that eating meat when you don't need to is at least analagous to taking the food off someone elses plate.
I would also argue that using animals as a tool to feed people is pretty speciesist - just because we can outsmart them doesn't mean we should treat them like they were put here exclusively for us to use.
posted by scodger at 4:19 PM on June 20, 2009
Also, if you are after resources, you could do worse than The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter by the above mentioned Peter Singer and Jim Mason. The book follows several families (vegetarian, vegan, freegan, "contientous omnivores", and average families) and discusses the ethical and environment results.
posted by scodger at 4:25 PM on June 20, 2009
posted by scodger at 4:25 PM on June 20, 2009
Best answer: Food animals can consider their death as their rent, as without the farmer's husbandry they would not have been able to experience life on this planet at all.
Your moral calculus is off-kilter if we're talking about factory farming. If the conditions in a factory farm are bad enough, it would be preferable for an animal to not that life at all. In other words, I wish those animals didn't exist at all. The thinking tends to get distorted when the topic is animals, but just think about a human being. Would you find it acceptable for parents to plan to have children with the express plan of torturing them on a regular basis? Of course not. It wouldn't redeem their actions to say, "But the child wouldn't have even existed if the parents hadn't decided to have and torture them!" If they're determined to raise kids that way, it'd be vastly preferable for them not to have children at all. (Note: I'm not assuming that human and animal lives are equal, just drawing an analogy.)
Anyway, to answer the OP's question more directly: are the ethics of eating meat changed by how much the animal suffered? Of course. The more the animal suffered, the more morally problematic the resulting meat is. I generally agree with ixohoxi's comment, which is probably the best answer in the thread.
Before you form an opinion on the moral question of "Is it wrong to eat meat?," you need to look at the specific, vivid facts about how the world really is. I'd hope that everyone, whether they're a vegetarian or not, could agree on that. And looking at the facts means looking at the methods used in factory farming, which are pretty horrendous. I know most people don't like to think about that and would rather joke about how much they like meat, but that's the reality for those who care to look at it. Unless you hold the view that animals are just like robots, with absolutely no feelings or awareness or anything (which I don't think many people believe), the actual conditions animals are raised in has to count for something. (One can make arguments that other factors matter more, but I don't think that's your question.)
So, if meat-eaters make a point to eat more humanely raised meat, well, that's great. That's an improvement over only eating factory-farmed meat. But it's pretty limited. I agree with Mark Bittman (who's not a vegetarian) when he said (in this TED lecture -- my transcription): "I like animals. And I don't think it's just fine to industrialize their production and to churn them out like they were wrenches. But there's no way to treat animals well when you're killing 10 billion of them a year. [Bittman is citing that figure just for the United States.] Kindness might just be a bit of a red herring. Let's get the numbers of animals we're killing for eating down, and then we'll worry about being nice to the ones that are left."
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:35 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Your moral calculus is off-kilter if we're talking about factory farming. If the conditions in a factory farm are bad enough, it would be preferable for an animal to not that life at all. In other words, I wish those animals didn't exist at all. The thinking tends to get distorted when the topic is animals, but just think about a human being. Would you find it acceptable for parents to plan to have children with the express plan of torturing them on a regular basis? Of course not. It wouldn't redeem their actions to say, "But the child wouldn't have even existed if the parents hadn't decided to have and torture them!" If they're determined to raise kids that way, it'd be vastly preferable for them not to have children at all. (Note: I'm not assuming that human and animal lives are equal, just drawing an analogy.)
Anyway, to answer the OP's question more directly: are the ethics of eating meat changed by how much the animal suffered? Of course. The more the animal suffered, the more morally problematic the resulting meat is. I generally agree with ixohoxi's comment, which is probably the best answer in the thread.
Before you form an opinion on the moral question of "Is it wrong to eat meat?," you need to look at the specific, vivid facts about how the world really is. I'd hope that everyone, whether they're a vegetarian or not, could agree on that. And looking at the facts means looking at the methods used in factory farming, which are pretty horrendous. I know most people don't like to think about that and would rather joke about how much they like meat, but that's the reality for those who care to look at it. Unless you hold the view that animals are just like robots, with absolutely no feelings or awareness or anything (which I don't think many people believe), the actual conditions animals are raised in has to count for something. (One can make arguments that other factors matter more, but I don't think that's your question.)
So, if meat-eaters make a point to eat more humanely raised meat, well, that's great. That's an improvement over only eating factory-farmed meat. But it's pretty limited. I agree with Mark Bittman (who's not a vegetarian) when he said (in this TED lecture -- my transcription): "I like animals. And I don't think it's just fine to industrialize their production and to churn them out like they were wrenches. But there's no way to treat animals well when you're killing 10 billion of them a year. [Bittman is citing that figure just for the United States.] Kindness might just be a bit of a red herring. Let's get the numbers of animals we're killing for eating down, and then we'll worry about being nice to the ones that are left."
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:35 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
* it would be preferable for an animal to not that life at all --> ...for an animal to not have that life at all...
(Consider this yet another request for an edit function on this website.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:36 PM on June 20, 2009
(Consider this yet another request for an edit function on this website.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:36 PM on June 20, 2009
I'd bet that fifty percent of people would drop meat from their diet...
I believe it's one of our larger failings, this horror-show disregard and lack of compassion toward animals that deserve at least a semblence of a life.
Your first statement doesn't hold true for places where it is common to slaughter and butcher in the household, whether wild game or livestock. There's always some minority of people who can't face the killing and eating, but the vast majority get over it quite easily. (That said, I agree that everyone who eats meat should have to kill and butcher some animals, at least once -- living so disconnected from where the food comes from isn't good for us.)
The second part, I absolutely agree with. I think that modern factory-style meat production is a tremendous moral failing of our society (and other societies that have adopted or invented these techniques). That doesn't mean that every animal raised for food should be hand petted by a staff of six every day -- but they should live lives that honor the fact that their lives are going to be sacrificed for our eating pleasure.
So yes, in answer to the original question, I do think that the ethics of eating meat depend heavily on the path it takes to get to you. Personally, I try to make sure that the majority of the meat that I buy comes from places that I'm reasonably sure give the animals both a decent life and a decent death.
I'm lucky -- I live in an area where there are a lot of small family meat producers, so I can buy locally-raised beef, chicken, pork, goat, and other meats (not to mention eggs and cheese) at the same or cheaper prices as you pay at the grocery store for the styrofoam stuff. And I'm also lucky that many (though not all) of the restaurants and bars I go to serve local meat, at non-exorbitant prices. Honestly, if I had to pay five times the price for "ethical" meat, I'd eat a lot less of it -- partly by eating less meat, but partly by eating more factory meat. You pick your battles, and accept imperfection.
And I don't impose that on other people -- I'd never, ever, ever quiz somebody about where the meat came from if they invite me over for dinner. "Locavore" and similar words are all the rage right now, but give it five years and the fad will have shifted again. Anyone who thinks that these are settled issues is only fooling themselves.
posted by Forktine at 5:07 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I believe it's one of our larger failings, this horror-show disregard and lack of compassion toward animals that deserve at least a semblence of a life.
Your first statement doesn't hold true for places where it is common to slaughter and butcher in the household, whether wild game or livestock. There's always some minority of people who can't face the killing and eating, but the vast majority get over it quite easily. (That said, I agree that everyone who eats meat should have to kill and butcher some animals, at least once -- living so disconnected from where the food comes from isn't good for us.)
The second part, I absolutely agree with. I think that modern factory-style meat production is a tremendous moral failing of our society (and other societies that have adopted or invented these techniques). That doesn't mean that every animal raised for food should be hand petted by a staff of six every day -- but they should live lives that honor the fact that their lives are going to be sacrificed for our eating pleasure.
So yes, in answer to the original question, I do think that the ethics of eating meat depend heavily on the path it takes to get to you. Personally, I try to make sure that the majority of the meat that I buy comes from places that I'm reasonably sure give the animals both a decent life and a decent death.
I'm lucky -- I live in an area where there are a lot of small family meat producers, so I can buy locally-raised beef, chicken, pork, goat, and other meats (not to mention eggs and cheese) at the same or cheaper prices as you pay at the grocery store for the styrofoam stuff. And I'm also lucky that many (though not all) of the restaurants and bars I go to serve local meat, at non-exorbitant prices. Honestly, if I had to pay five times the price for "ethical" meat, I'd eat a lot less of it -- partly by eating less meat, but partly by eating more factory meat. You pick your battles, and accept imperfection.
And I don't impose that on other people -- I'd never, ever, ever quiz somebody about where the meat came from if they invite me over for dinner. "Locavore" and similar words are all the rage right now, but give it five years and the fad will have shifted again. Anyone who thinks that these are settled issues is only fooling themselves.
posted by Forktine at 5:07 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
For example, a meat-based diet requires more fossil fuels, land, and other resources vs. a plant-based diet.
Not necessarily. I recommend reading The Omnivore's Dilemma. Industrial corn, for example, uses much more resources than nutrient-dense, pasture-raised organic meat, for another example, at every stage of the process from growing to delivery.
To answer the OP: I've recently come to the conclusion that I generally can't support feedlot meat or industrial food anymore. I don't think that animals have any inherent right to not be eaten, but I do think that it's ethical to reduce suffering and impossible to eliminate it, and it's ethically mandatory (to me) to try to leave a small footprint.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 5:32 PM on June 20, 2009
Not necessarily. I recommend reading The Omnivore's Dilemma. Industrial corn, for example, uses much more resources than nutrient-dense, pasture-raised organic meat, for another example, at every stage of the process from growing to delivery.
To answer the OP: I've recently come to the conclusion that I generally can't support feedlot meat or industrial food anymore. I don't think that animals have any inherent right to not be eaten, but I do think that it's ethical to reduce suffering and impossible to eliminate it, and it's ethically mandatory (to me) to try to leave a small footprint.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 5:32 PM on June 20, 2009
It really depends on your reasons for being a vegan/vegetarian/what-have-you.
I have a friend who wants animals to be treated humanely. If there was a way that animals could be killed for food painlessly and in a dignified manner, she would not hesitate to eat them, though for now she's a pescetarian because she can't find any sources of meat that were killed in a humane and pain-free manner.
Me, I'm a vegetarian because I think its not right to kill animals for food simply because we've got opposable thumbs and they don't (I know, somewhat a simplification, but the point being our assumed superiority doesn't give us a right to eat them). So no matter how pain-free, humane or ethical the treatment of the animal was, I still wouldn't eat it.
YMMV.
posted by titantoppler at 6:05 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I have a friend who wants animals to be treated humanely. If there was a way that animals could be killed for food painlessly and in a dignified manner, she would not hesitate to eat them, though for now she's a pescetarian because she can't find any sources of meat that were killed in a humane and pain-free manner.
Me, I'm a vegetarian because I think its not right to kill animals for food simply because we've got opposable thumbs and they don't (I know, somewhat a simplification, but the point being our assumed superiority doesn't give us a right to eat them). So no matter how pain-free, humane or ethical the treatment of the animal was, I still wouldn't eat it.
YMMV.
posted by titantoppler at 6:05 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
There is a school of feminist theory that explores the connection between the exploitation of animals and the exploitation of women. You might find these books interesting and useful in your research about the ethics of eating meat:
Carol J. Adams, The Sexual Politics of Meat and The Pornography of Meat
Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (anthology edited by Adams)
Joni Seager also addresses this briefly in Earth Follies.
Full disclosure: I am a feminist, and I was a vegan for 6 months and a vegetarian for 7 years, but I now eat meat--however, I prefer it to be from animals that lived a good life, free of pain and suffering, before they were slaughtered humanely. However, I live in an area where there are independent butchers who source meat from small local farmers and hunters; ethically raised or wild game is fairly readily available, although more expensive. I recognize that it's not so easy in other places, and more difficult for those with less disposable income, to buy ethically raised meat.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 6:23 PM on June 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
Carol J. Adams, The Sexual Politics of Meat and The Pornography of Meat
Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (anthology edited by Adams)
Joni Seager also addresses this briefly in Earth Follies.
Full disclosure: I am a feminist, and I was a vegan for 6 months and a vegetarian for 7 years, but I now eat meat--however, I prefer it to be from animals that lived a good life, free of pain and suffering, before they were slaughtered humanely. However, I live in an area where there are independent butchers who source meat from small local farmers and hunters; ethically raised or wild game is fairly readily available, although more expensive. I recognize that it's not so easy in other places, and more difficult for those with less disposable income, to buy ethically raised meat.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 6:23 PM on June 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
Three things worth considering:
One - factory farming tends to be part of industry that has poor labor practices, so even if you personally want cows and pigs to suffer on their way to your grocer's freezer, you are still giving your money to an industry that exploits people and violates labor laws.
Two - Asking people to be cruel, or even careless, with living things is probably not something you want to do for reasons having nothing to do with our furry (and sometimes delicious) friends.
Three: Factory farming, crowded conditions for laying hens, and other mass-production schemes are high-risk for contamination and disease.
You would think that people who have no dog in the fight about the morality could be engaged in those three questions, but usually they can't/won't.
I have no problem eating animals, or feeding them to my pets. Or baiting fish hooks. But I was really upset the first time I walked along a recently ploughed field and realized that although my dad had told me the birds you always see flocking over newly turned earth were eating bugs that had been exposed, what the birds were really after were shredded baby rabbits and nestlings and other creatures that are torn to shreds.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 7:04 PM on June 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
One - factory farming tends to be part of industry that has poor labor practices, so even if you personally want cows and pigs to suffer on their way to your grocer's freezer, you are still giving your money to an industry that exploits people and violates labor laws.
Two - Asking people to be cruel, or even careless, with living things is probably not something you want to do for reasons having nothing to do with our furry (and sometimes delicious) friends.
Three: Factory farming, crowded conditions for laying hens, and other mass-production schemes are high-risk for contamination and disease.
You would think that people who have no dog in the fight about the morality could be engaged in those three questions, but usually they can't/won't.
I have no problem eating animals, or feeding them to my pets. Or baiting fish hooks. But I was really upset the first time I walked along a recently ploughed field and realized that although my dad had told me the birds you always see flocking over newly turned earth were eating bugs that had been exposed, what the birds were really after were shredded baby rabbits and nestlings and other creatures that are torn to shreds.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 7:04 PM on June 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I went through an extended period as a vegetarian and vegan, at the urging of my first (deceased) wife. After she died, I married an omnivore and consider myself one. While a vegetarian, I explored the issue frequently.
I recall one discussion with a friend who calls himself a 'meat-atarian' and ONLY eats meat. (He's 150 pounds overweight and I expect to outlive him, but he outlived my 46 year old first wife.) In this discussion, I accepted his premise that 'every thing eats something', but countered it with 'Yes, but we get to CHOOSE what.' Unlike your basic other-animal, our dietary modes aren't set by instinct, but are subject to moral content. We can choose not to inflict pain... it's entirely up to us. Our dietary choice either involves pain or it doesn't. It's rather binary.
So the issue (on this aspect) is 'Do you consider humans to be different from other animals or the same?' If different, then we can elect different rules, one of of which may be to eat the most efficiently and least painful way, by eschewing (not chewing!) meat. If you think we're no different than other animals, then there is no point in even posing this question, but at the same time, you have to abandon your other beliefs predicated on humanity being a special case in the scheme of things. All questions of morality become moot, as animals do not possess morals.
Presents a wonderful conundrum to the 'dominion over the beasts' arguments popular with folks who like to use stale bibles to justify their deeds.
That said, I'm just recounting the argument. I find it simpler to eat meat now than not to, but often will choose the non-meat options if one is presented. But I NEVER eat meat without intentionally reminding myself of what it is... part of a living creature at one point. Muscle just like mine. I'm not sentinmental about cows, pigs and chickens, and I am no stranger to killing. I suspect (with reason) that animals other than humans learn about death first when they die. I suspect (with reason) that they know present pain and fear. In the wild, few die of old age. Most are shredded into pieces while they are still alive, and an instant death at the butcher is probably preferable to being ripped into small pieces by a pack of wolves.
/rant
posted by FauxScot at 7:24 PM on June 20, 2009
I recall one discussion with a friend who calls himself a 'meat-atarian' and ONLY eats meat. (He's 150 pounds overweight and I expect to outlive him, but he outlived my 46 year old first wife.) In this discussion, I accepted his premise that 'every thing eats something', but countered it with 'Yes, but we get to CHOOSE what.' Unlike your basic other-animal, our dietary modes aren't set by instinct, but are subject to moral content. We can choose not to inflict pain... it's entirely up to us. Our dietary choice either involves pain or it doesn't. It's rather binary.
So the issue (on this aspect) is 'Do you consider humans to be different from other animals or the same?' If different, then we can elect different rules, one of of which may be to eat the most efficiently and least painful way, by eschewing (not chewing!) meat. If you think we're no different than other animals, then there is no point in even posing this question, but at the same time, you have to abandon your other beliefs predicated on humanity being a special case in the scheme of things. All questions of morality become moot, as animals do not possess morals.
Presents a wonderful conundrum to the 'dominion over the beasts' arguments popular with folks who like to use stale bibles to justify their deeds.
That said, I'm just recounting the argument. I find it simpler to eat meat now than not to, but often will choose the non-meat options if one is presented. But I NEVER eat meat without intentionally reminding myself of what it is... part of a living creature at one point. Muscle just like mine. I'm not sentinmental about cows, pigs and chickens, and I am no stranger to killing. I suspect (with reason) that animals other than humans learn about death first when they die. I suspect (with reason) that they know present pain and fear. In the wild, few die of old age. Most are shredded into pieces while they are still alive, and an instant death at the butcher is probably preferable to being ripped into small pieces by a pack of wolves.
/rant
posted by FauxScot at 7:24 PM on June 20, 2009
Best answer: Just to play devil's advocate, I say the fact that we give animals a relatively pain-free, comfortable life has no bearing on the morality of choosing to end it. Slaughtering animals for protein to feed humans is either right or wrong, period. If "less bad" is good enough to ease your conscience, you still can't get away from the fact that you're implicitly endorsing the institution of farming, i.e. the creation and taking of life for your own nutrition and enjoyment.
posted by aquafortis at 7:43 PM on June 20, 2009
posted by aquafortis at 7:43 PM on June 20, 2009
The reason I quit eating meat was the brutality of factory farming and the horrible lives most of those animals lead, packed into tiny cages and not permitted to have any kind of natural life. I cannot contribute to an industry that treats animals the way many meat animals are treated. An investigative TV report on the factory farming of pigs, intelligent creatures who are really treated horribly, was the nail in the coffin of my meat-eating days.
If the above were not true, I'm really not sure I would have become a non-meat-eater. So, yeah, for me, the life and experience of the animal does make a difference.
posted by OolooKitty at 8:24 PM on June 20, 2009
If the above were not true, I'm really not sure I would have become a non-meat-eater. So, yeah, for me, the life and experience of the animal does make a difference.
posted by OolooKitty at 8:24 PM on June 20, 2009
Yes, it's more ethical, because it's not just about the animals. Industrial farming is a really scary thing.
posted by archagon at 1:42 AM on June 21, 2009
posted by archagon at 1:42 AM on June 21, 2009
If you're interested to see what the slaughterhouses really look like, try watching the undercover videos at Peta2.com. Watching those was enough for me to second guess my eating habits. Of course humanely raised animals are better to eat IMO, and I would be way more likely to feel okay about eating a cow which had, until its death, a pretty nice life. Those slaughterhouses are disgusting and warped and the animals that find themselves there live in hell until they die. Endorsing that practice by continuing to buy from those companies reinforces the belief that animals are not as important as humans, or that they are specifically here just for us to eat. I feel that both of those statements are completely false and are also an affront to God and goodness. If you have the choice, choose to eat happy animals.
posted by wild like kudzu at 6:11 AM on June 21, 2009
posted by wild like kudzu at 6:11 AM on June 21, 2009
is it more ethical to eat humanely raised and killed animals?
Only if you believe that animals have intrinsic value that exists separately from any assigned by humans.
Huh? I don't believe humans, animals or anything has intrinsic value, yet I still think it's wrong to make animals (or people) suffer*. What does "intrinsic value" mean? Value to whom? The idea of value doesn't make sense without an intelligent agent to do the valuing. (I guess if you believe in God, then there's always an intelligent agent to do the valuing. In that case, you should clarify by saying "God values X." The word "intrinsic" just muddies the water.)
What happens if I value diamonds but my friend doesn't? Do diamonds have intrinsic value or not? I can't think of anything that ALL people value. Life? Some people prefer death. Happiness? Some people prefer to wallow in depression. So "intrinsic value" doesn't even make sense as term that means "something all people value." I guess you could use it to mean "something most people value" or "something many people value." In which case, I would still avoid "intrinsic." It's clearer to just say "something most people value."
My personal opinion is that human beings are predisposed by evolution to engage the world via an anthropocentric lens.
If I beat a cow with a stick, how do I know it's suffering? Maybe I'm just anthropomorphizing it.
Yup. I am. I can't know for sure it's suffering. I also can't know for sure that you're suffering if I beat you with a stick. My Theory of Mind might be bogus.
But feelings (e.g. suffering) evolved. They are useful survival features. If something is damaging a cow's body, it makes sense that Natural Selection would engineer the cow to avoid the hurt. I can suffer; other people probably can suffer (so says my Theory of Mind); and it would be very odd (and convenient) if that trait sprung into being just as humans became human and is completely non-existent in other animals. Surely suffering (and joy, etc.) exists in SOME form for many animals -- at least in animals that are similar to us in other ways.
When people suffer, they cry out, they try to run away, etc. Animals do the same. Occam's Razor urges me to anthropomorphize. "Anthropomorphize" is a dirty word for some reason. It shouldn't be. (It should be thought of as similar to "gut reasoning" -- a valuable process that also has pitfalls.) It can lead to trouble in the sciences -- and it can lead us to put tuxedos on monkeys -- but it isn't all bad. We are animals. It makes sense for us to contemplate ways in which our fellow Earthlings are like us.
* I believe that it's wrong to make animals suffer. I believe that many of our practices cause animals to suffer -- including my practice of eating meat. Yet I eat meat -- and not just from animals that have been farmed humanely. I have no excuse for this. It is a way in which I behave badly. Very badly. I have tried to become a vegetarian, but it's very hard for me. I feel like I'm a natural meat eater. That's a selfish excuse, but thus far I've been too weak to overcome it. I deal with my weakness by vacillating between denial and contemplation. It's an ongoing issue for me. There are times when it hits me that, according to my ethics, when I eat a hamburger I am as evil as if I'm eating the flesh of a human who was killed horribly, against his will. I hate myself at times like that.
I also find this almost impossible to discuss with people. They turn away. Most people are incapable of thinking, "sometimes I'm a bad person." (Yet who isn't bad sometimes?) If they do something morally questionable, they find a way to justify it. Or they stop doing it. But they don't continue to do it while looking it in the face and admitting it's wrong. People act like it's simple: like if you KNOW something is wrong, you can easily stop doing it. As if the main problem is knowing. That's not the main problem. Knowing and stopping are two different issues.
Somehow I'm different. I often know I'm doing wrong. I feel bad about it, but I can't always easily alter my course. When I talk about this, it turns people off. So -- other than in discussions like this -- I don't talk about it.
posted by grumblebee at 8:34 AM on June 21, 2009 [2 favorites]
Only if you believe that animals have intrinsic value that exists separately from any assigned by humans.
Huh? I don't believe humans, animals or anything has intrinsic value, yet I still think it's wrong to make animals (or people) suffer*. What does "intrinsic value" mean? Value to whom? The idea of value doesn't make sense without an intelligent agent to do the valuing. (I guess if you believe in God, then there's always an intelligent agent to do the valuing. In that case, you should clarify by saying "God values X." The word "intrinsic" just muddies the water.)
What happens if I value diamonds but my friend doesn't? Do diamonds have intrinsic value or not? I can't think of anything that ALL people value. Life? Some people prefer death. Happiness? Some people prefer to wallow in depression. So "intrinsic value" doesn't even make sense as term that means "something all people value." I guess you could use it to mean "something most people value" or "something many people value." In which case, I would still avoid "intrinsic." It's clearer to just say "something most people value."
My personal opinion is that human beings are predisposed by evolution to engage the world via an anthropocentric lens.
If I beat a cow with a stick, how do I know it's suffering? Maybe I'm just anthropomorphizing it.
Yup. I am. I can't know for sure it's suffering. I also can't know for sure that you're suffering if I beat you with a stick. My Theory of Mind might be bogus.
But feelings (e.g. suffering) evolved. They are useful survival features. If something is damaging a cow's body, it makes sense that Natural Selection would engineer the cow to avoid the hurt. I can suffer; other people probably can suffer (so says my Theory of Mind); and it would be very odd (and convenient) if that trait sprung into being just as humans became human and is completely non-existent in other animals. Surely suffering (and joy, etc.) exists in SOME form for many animals -- at least in animals that are similar to us in other ways.
When people suffer, they cry out, they try to run away, etc. Animals do the same. Occam's Razor urges me to anthropomorphize. "Anthropomorphize" is a dirty word for some reason. It shouldn't be. (It should be thought of as similar to "gut reasoning" -- a valuable process that also has pitfalls.) It can lead to trouble in the sciences -- and it can lead us to put tuxedos on monkeys -- but it isn't all bad. We are animals. It makes sense for us to contemplate ways in which our fellow Earthlings are like us.
* I believe that it's wrong to make animals suffer. I believe that many of our practices cause animals to suffer -- including my practice of eating meat. Yet I eat meat -- and not just from animals that have been farmed humanely. I have no excuse for this. It is a way in which I behave badly. Very badly. I have tried to become a vegetarian, but it's very hard for me. I feel like I'm a natural meat eater. That's a selfish excuse, but thus far I've been too weak to overcome it. I deal with my weakness by vacillating between denial and contemplation. It's an ongoing issue for me. There are times when it hits me that, according to my ethics, when I eat a hamburger I am as evil as if I'm eating the flesh of a human who was killed horribly, against his will. I hate myself at times like that.
I also find this almost impossible to discuss with people. They turn away. Most people are incapable of thinking, "sometimes I'm a bad person." (Yet who isn't bad sometimes?) If they do something morally questionable, they find a way to justify it. Or they stop doing it. But they don't continue to do it while looking it in the face and admitting it's wrong. People act like it's simple: like if you KNOW something is wrong, you can easily stop doing it. As if the main problem is knowing. That's not the main problem. Knowing and stopping are two different issues.
Somehow I'm different. I often know I'm doing wrong. I feel bad about it, but I can't always easily alter my course. When I talk about this, it turns people off. So -- other than in discussions like this -- I don't talk about it.
posted by grumblebee at 8:34 AM on June 21, 2009 [2 favorites]
I like to split it into two issues:
1- Is it ethical to eat meat? I say yes, but I understand how others might disagree. We are animals, and lots of animals eat other animals, and in that respect it is ethical for us to eat animals if that's what satisfies out appetite.
2- How we treat animals in our care. I believe that we should treat animals in our care well. Regardless of their ultimate destination. The idea that it's somehow OK to treat an animal differently because we are going to kill it shortly for dinner is just wrong to me. It's the same moral relativity and ends-justifying-the-means BS as mistreating criminals because they would mistreat us if given the chance. To be truly moral, we must treat everyone and everything the same way, with decency. Ethics and morality is about what we do when there *aren't* consequences. You can't call yourself ethical/moral if make different choices depending on who's looking. (Interestingly, that's one of the weirnesses of [some forms of] Christianity- you aren't taught to be good because that's what's right- you are taught to be good because god is *always* watching. Which leads to the bible-quote-wars that you see, where people try to justify being not so good via the word of god. 'Cause if god says it's ok, then we can get away with it.)
posted by gjc at 9:01 AM on June 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
1- Is it ethical to eat meat? I say yes, but I understand how others might disagree. We are animals, and lots of animals eat other animals, and in that respect it is ethical for us to eat animals if that's what satisfies out appetite.
2- How we treat animals in our care. I believe that we should treat animals in our care well. Regardless of their ultimate destination. The idea that it's somehow OK to treat an animal differently because we are going to kill it shortly for dinner is just wrong to me. It's the same moral relativity and ends-justifying-the-means BS as mistreating criminals because they would mistreat us if given the chance. To be truly moral, we must treat everyone and everything the same way, with decency. Ethics and morality is about what we do when there *aren't* consequences. You can't call yourself ethical/moral if make different choices depending on who's looking. (Interestingly, that's one of the weirnesses of [some forms of] Christianity- you aren't taught to be good because that's what's right- you are taught to be good because god is *always* watching. Which leads to the bible-quote-wars that you see, where people try to justify being not so good via the word of god. 'Cause if god says it's ok, then we can get away with it.)
posted by gjc at 9:01 AM on June 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
Just an anecdote - I tease my vegan coworker because it's easy, even though I agree with a lot of sentiments. The other day he said he didn't agree with a girl's morals and I asked him what he meant. He said she worked for the worst kind of meat company - one that touts humane slaughtering and living conditions for their animals. He said this makes them feel morally superior or correct despite still slaughtering animals. I asked if that was worse than a butcher that doesn't do any cruel free farming and he said in his opinion it was because humane farming is hypocritical and tricks people into eating meat in what they think is an ethical way.
I don't necessarily agree with him, but that's what the angry vegan said.
posted by OrangeDrink at 9:12 AM on June 21, 2009
I don't necessarily agree with him, but that's what the angry vegan said.
posted by OrangeDrink at 9:12 AM on June 21, 2009
The book "The Skinny Bitch" offers a decidedly animal rights view about why we shouldn't eat meat or consume any animal products.
posted by gammer at 12:34 PM on June 21, 2009
posted by gammer at 12:34 PM on June 21, 2009
Vegan here. It is unquestionably more ethical to eat "humanely" raised and killed animals. But the "more ethical" is akin to the difference between murdering someone and torturing and then murdering them.
If you ask a utilitarian, Singer, for example, the life of the animal is the most important and so long as it's killed painlessly, you have no ethical issue with the act killing itself. Basically, the animal has no "right" to its life, only a right to equal consideration of its interests. Singer argues that the animal's interest in not suffering should be evaluated very highly, but that its interest of continuing to live (usually) evaluated rather low (because he doesn't believe that most animals have a conception of the future, make plans, etc). If an animal's interests are evaluated to be worth less than the interests of all other parties, then go ahead and kill the animal, no problem.
Ask Regan, and he'll say that the animal does have a right to its own life, and that there therefore is a moral transgression when the animal is killed. He will of course agree that treating the animal badly in its lifetime is an additional ethical transgression.
Summary: both 'animal rights' camps agree that causing an animal to suffer in its lifetime is usually ethically wrong. Therefore, eating "humanely raised and killed animals" can only be ethically less wrong, but it doesn't erase the possible wrong-ness of killing the animal at all, or failing to account for some other interest that an animal might have.
posted by beerbajay at 5:54 PM on June 21, 2009
If you ask a utilitarian, Singer, for example, the life of the animal is the most important and so long as it's killed painlessly, you have no ethical issue with the act killing itself. Basically, the animal has no "right" to its life, only a right to equal consideration of its interests. Singer argues that the animal's interest in not suffering should be evaluated very highly, but that its interest of continuing to live (usually) evaluated rather low (because he doesn't believe that most animals have a conception of the future, make plans, etc). If an animal's interests are evaluated to be worth less than the interests of all other parties, then go ahead and kill the animal, no problem.
Ask Regan, and he'll say that the animal does have a right to its own life, and that there therefore is a moral transgression when the animal is killed. He will of course agree that treating the animal badly in its lifetime is an additional ethical transgression.
Summary: both 'animal rights' camps agree that causing an animal to suffer in its lifetime is usually ethically wrong. Therefore, eating "humanely raised and killed animals" can only be ethically less wrong, but it doesn't erase the possible wrong-ness of killing the animal at all, or failing to account for some other interest that an animal might have.
posted by beerbajay at 5:54 PM on June 21, 2009
Adding to OrangeDrink's comment:
The issue is basically that most people seem to have an implicit utilitarian view with respect to animals (though not with humans, for some reason). These people already accept the death of the animal as moral (they're already eating meat), so the only thing they're convinced that they should care about is whether the animal suffers or not. Companies which sell "humanely raised and slaughtered animals" as meat are directly addressing this utilitarian position by saying "look, our animals suffer less! that's good in a utilitarian worldview!" while at the same time implying "hey, our animals don't suffer at all," when that's clearly untrue. From a utilitarian perspective both cases are better, but the impression given is of a greater degree of improvement than there truly is. And of course, this is part of why the vegan is angry.
posted by beerbajay at 6:04 PM on June 21, 2009
The issue is basically that most people seem to have an implicit utilitarian view with respect to animals (though not with humans, for some reason). These people already accept the death of the animal as moral (they're already eating meat), so the only thing they're convinced that they should care about is whether the animal suffers or not. Companies which sell "humanely raised and slaughtered animals" as meat are directly addressing this utilitarian position by saying "look, our animals suffer less! that's good in a utilitarian worldview!" while at the same time implying "hey, our animals don't suffer at all," when that's clearly untrue. From a utilitarian perspective both cases are better, but the impression given is of a greater degree of improvement than there truly is. And of course, this is part of why the vegan is angry.
posted by beerbajay at 6:04 PM on June 21, 2009
grumblebee,
I think I was pretty clear in my usage of the phrase "intrinsic value" as stated in response to the OP. Sorry you seemed to get tripped up on your own navel gazing.
Look, either animals have an intrinsic value outside of any humans can ascribe to them or they don't. I tend to think that humans are incapable of realizing such value outside of our own anthropocentric world view - that is to say that it is impossible for us to ascertain value (or call it worth or merit or whatever) that is wholly outside any we would assign to such subjects ourselves.
Your unlettered response proves my point. You're anthropomorphizing meat by assigning it human values and interests.
Forgive me if I'm bordering on nihilism here, but the fossil record indicates that entire genera have lived out their lives for millions of years and gone extinct long before humans were around to say, "Oh, won't someone please think of the trilobites." To me that indicates that "intrinsic value" is an illusion of anthropomorphism.
The OP's question asked if there were ethical questions which should be asked when considering eating meat. My point was that any ethical question that is grounded in anthropomorphism is in itself illusory. To make a statement such as, "Animals feel pain. Inflicting pain makes me feel queasy. Therefore I don't eat meat is," is no different from saying, "Cutting down trees kills the tree. I don't like killing. Therefore I don't use wood products." It's a grating comparison, but that in no way makes it less apt.
I did however leave the OP an "out" for making a truly self-interested ethical question that doesn't involve casting human characteristics upon matter in motion. That is, in terms of self-preservation, factory farms provably cause harms. Other examples can be found which follow this self-interested, ethical questioning.
In short, my point was this: if you're going to plum ethical questions, first make sure you aren't allowing your own frontal lobe to trip you up.
posted by wfrgms at 8:27 PM on June 21, 2009
I think I was pretty clear in my usage of the phrase "intrinsic value" as stated in response to the OP. Sorry you seemed to get tripped up on your own navel gazing.
Look, either animals have an intrinsic value outside of any humans can ascribe to them or they don't. I tend to think that humans are incapable of realizing such value outside of our own anthropocentric world view - that is to say that it is impossible for us to ascertain value (or call it worth or merit or whatever) that is wholly outside any we would assign to such subjects ourselves.
Your unlettered response proves my point. You're anthropomorphizing meat by assigning it human values and interests.
Forgive me if I'm bordering on nihilism here, but the fossil record indicates that entire genera have lived out their lives for millions of years and gone extinct long before humans were around to say, "Oh, won't someone please think of the trilobites." To me that indicates that "intrinsic value" is an illusion of anthropomorphism.
The OP's question asked if there were ethical questions which should be asked when considering eating meat. My point was that any ethical question that is grounded in anthropomorphism is in itself illusory. To make a statement such as, "Animals feel pain. Inflicting pain makes me feel queasy. Therefore I don't eat meat is," is no different from saying, "Cutting down trees kills the tree. I don't like killing. Therefore I don't use wood products." It's a grating comparison, but that in no way makes it less apt.
I did however leave the OP an "out" for making a truly self-interested ethical question that doesn't involve casting human characteristics upon matter in motion. That is, in terms of self-preservation, factory farms provably cause harms. Other examples can be found which follow this self-interested, ethical questioning.
In short, my point was this: if you're going to plum ethical questions, first make sure you aren't allowing your own frontal lobe to trip you up.
posted by wfrgms at 8:27 PM on June 21, 2009
Sorry that my head is stuck in my navel, but I'm still confused by what you mean by "intrinsic value." I am not trying to trap you in a web of logic (or illogic). I genuinely don't understand. And I am open-minded enough to realize that, if can eventually do understand, I may realize I'm wrong about some stuff. I'm cool with being wrong, so I'd like to understand.
Can you help me out? Can you explain who or what is the valuer when something has intrinsic value? Or, if you feel that there doesn't need to be an agent that places or acknowledges value, can you explain what "value" means in this "detached" context?
I always thought "value" was a property that made objects seem important, beautiful or useful to people (or other intelligent agents). I don't get how "value" makes sense out of that context. If there was no life left on Earth, no God, and no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, would the Mona Lisa still have value? In what sense? I really, really don't get it.
My point was that any ethical question that is grounded in anthropomorphism is in itself illusory. To make a statement such as, "Animals feel pain. Inflicting pain makes me feel queasy. Therefore I don't eat meat is," is no different from saying, "Cutting down trees kills the tree. I don't like killing. Therefore I don't use wood products." It's a grating comparison, but that in no way makes it less apt.
I get all this, and I basically agree with it, but I don't see the bigger picture you're trying to explain.
Is you point that ethical systems are only worthy if they are "etched in stone"? If they are laws of nature, like gravity? I disagree with that. First of all, I don't think ethical systems are -- or can be -- cosmic laws. I don't think they exist outside of people's minds. Killing isn't wrong because IT'S WRONG. Killing is wrong because people FEEL it's wrong. Unless you believe in God, then what other alternative is there? Even if you do believe in God, then killing is wrong because God FEELS it's wrong. In either case, ethical "laws" are not like gravity.
There are some ethical feelings that are close to universal, meaning that they are shared by most people. For instance, most people feel like murder (however they personally define the term) is wrong. Since this feeling exists in all cultures and time periods, it's probably prompted by genetic factors. In other words, it's in our nature to feel that killing is wrong.
An ethical system is a set of rules that more or less describes and codifies close-to-universal ethical feelings. Since ethical systems (as opposed to ethical feelings) are man made, they are rarely completely accurate mappings to ethical feelings/impulses.
Of course, founders of ethical systems are rarely trying to create such mappings. Rather, they are trying to impose some sort of societal order, basing their laws on traditions, religious teachings or nefarious political schemes. Still, their systems tend to fail (or be costly to maintain) if they stray too far away from what people naturally feel is right and wrong.
As a human, part of my nature is to feel empathy. Empathy is completely based on an illusion: that you have feelings that are similar to my feelings. It really SEEMS like you do, but even if you do, my feelings that you do are based in illusions, fabricated by my brain. It can't be anything but an illusion, because it's impossible for me to "stand in your shoes" and feel your feelings. I can only guess and extrapolate.
I don't see how animals are special cases. I am just as in the dark about how they really feel (or if they really feel) as I am in the case of your feelings, my wife's feelings or Obama's feelings. Both my brother and a giraffe are black boxes to me.
ANY ethical feelings/impulses that go beyond how I should treat myself -- any ethical system that suggests how I should treat others -- necessarily MUST be based on anthropomorphism. I know it's customary to speak of anthropomorphizing animals and not humans, but this is a false dichotomy, because humans are animals.
"It's nuts to assume animals have human feelings!" Maybe, but then it's equally nuts to assume that humans -- humans other than ourselves -- have human feelings. Anthropomorphizing means assuming outward signs map on to guessable inner states. Well, that's what I do every day with my co-workers, friends and family -- and with dogs and cats. What else CAN I do?
I start with the axiom that causing something to suffer is bad. I can't explain why it's bad. I just feel that it is (and I suspect I'm built to feel this way). With that axiom in my head, I feel guilty if I cause suffering. I don't want to feel that guilt, so I try to NOT cause suffering. But how can I know whether or not I'm causing suffering without being able to get inside someone else's head? Answer: I can't. Not definitively. All I can do is go with my gut and take educated guesses. That's what you do when you follow an ethical system. What's the alternative?
posted by grumblebee at 6:57 AM on June 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can you help me out? Can you explain who or what is the valuer when something has intrinsic value? Or, if you feel that there doesn't need to be an agent that places or acknowledges value, can you explain what "value" means in this "detached" context?
I always thought "value" was a property that made objects seem important, beautiful or useful to people (or other intelligent agents). I don't get how "value" makes sense out of that context. If there was no life left on Earth, no God, and no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, would the Mona Lisa still have value? In what sense? I really, really don't get it.
My point was that any ethical question that is grounded in anthropomorphism is in itself illusory. To make a statement such as, "Animals feel pain. Inflicting pain makes me feel queasy. Therefore I don't eat meat is," is no different from saying, "Cutting down trees kills the tree. I don't like killing. Therefore I don't use wood products." It's a grating comparison, but that in no way makes it less apt.
I get all this, and I basically agree with it, but I don't see the bigger picture you're trying to explain.
Is you point that ethical systems are only worthy if they are "etched in stone"? If they are laws of nature, like gravity? I disagree with that. First of all, I don't think ethical systems are -- or can be -- cosmic laws. I don't think they exist outside of people's minds. Killing isn't wrong because IT'S WRONG. Killing is wrong because people FEEL it's wrong. Unless you believe in God, then what other alternative is there? Even if you do believe in God, then killing is wrong because God FEELS it's wrong. In either case, ethical "laws" are not like gravity.
There are some ethical feelings that are close to universal, meaning that they are shared by most people. For instance, most people feel like murder (however they personally define the term) is wrong. Since this feeling exists in all cultures and time periods, it's probably prompted by genetic factors. In other words, it's in our nature to feel that killing is wrong.
An ethical system is a set of rules that more or less describes and codifies close-to-universal ethical feelings. Since ethical systems (as opposed to ethical feelings) are man made, they are rarely completely accurate mappings to ethical feelings/impulses.
Of course, founders of ethical systems are rarely trying to create such mappings. Rather, they are trying to impose some sort of societal order, basing their laws on traditions, religious teachings or nefarious political schemes. Still, their systems tend to fail (or be costly to maintain) if they stray too far away from what people naturally feel is right and wrong.
As a human, part of my nature is to feel empathy. Empathy is completely based on an illusion: that you have feelings that are similar to my feelings. It really SEEMS like you do, but even if you do, my feelings that you do are based in illusions, fabricated by my brain. It can't be anything but an illusion, because it's impossible for me to "stand in your shoes" and feel your feelings. I can only guess and extrapolate.
I don't see how animals are special cases. I am just as in the dark about how they really feel (or if they really feel) as I am in the case of your feelings, my wife's feelings or Obama's feelings. Both my brother and a giraffe are black boxes to me.
ANY ethical feelings/impulses that go beyond how I should treat myself -- any ethical system that suggests how I should treat others -- necessarily MUST be based on anthropomorphism. I know it's customary to speak of anthropomorphizing animals and not humans, but this is a false dichotomy, because humans are animals.
"It's nuts to assume animals have human feelings!" Maybe, but then it's equally nuts to assume that humans -- humans other than ourselves -- have human feelings. Anthropomorphizing means assuming outward signs map on to guessable inner states. Well, that's what I do every day with my co-workers, friends and family -- and with dogs and cats. What else CAN I do?
I start with the axiom that causing something to suffer is bad. I can't explain why it's bad. I just feel that it is (and I suspect I'm built to feel this way). With that axiom in my head, I feel guilty if I cause suffering. I don't want to feel that guilt, so I try to NOT cause suffering. But how can I know whether or not I'm causing suffering without being able to get inside someone else's head? Answer: I can't. Not definitively. All I can do is go with my gut and take educated guesses. That's what you do when you follow an ethical system. What's the alternative?
posted by grumblebee at 6:57 AM on June 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
I feel that perhaps I am missing something about your question.
posted by Flunkie at 2:21 PM on June 20, 2009 [1 favorite]