Meat-Eating vs. Bestiality

[Quintessence]

eating is vital eating meat is not. Sex can definitely be viewed as mandatory from a genetic point of view. (think in terms of the selfish gene)

Please explain to me how sex with something you can't procreate with is somehow a vital need, particularly compared to consuming food.

 

[Iti oj]

Please explain to me how sex with something you can't procreate with is somehow a vital need, particularly compared to consuming food.

sex is needed sex with a donkey is not. Eating is needed eating meat is not.

 

[Quintessence]

sex is needed sex with a donkey is not. Eating is needed eating meat is not.

DS was asking about a comparison between eating non-human animals and having sex with a non-human animal, in a non-consentual context, as a moral question. Considering one satisfies a vital need and the other doesn't, that this question is even being asked is frankly absurd to me. If you're starving on an island and have a single non-human animal present with you, are you going to $#@% it or eat it? Is that even a valid question, guys?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'd be careful about speaking for all of humanity there, and frankly, we could say the same thing about eating fruits and veggies or any other specific type of food. This point doesn't negate the contrast I was setting up. Fact still stands that eating is a vital need for heterotrophic organisms, and sex is not. I'm honestly befuddled that this comparison is even being made given the obvious difference there. Might as well ask about "drinking water vs. watching television" or something.

Eating is vital, but not all eaten material is the same. For instance, I could live without eating my favorite breakfast food, which is fruit jam. I eat it primarily for pleasure, since I can replace it with any other food to perform the same function of being my breakfast. One could argue that eating meat is also for pleasure since meat is replaceable by vegetarian alternatives to perform the same vital function.

 

[Iti oj]

DS was asking about a comparison between eating non-human animals and having sex with a non-human animal, in a non-consentual context, as a moral question. Considering one satisfies a vital need and the other doesn't, that this question is even being asked is frankly absurd to me. If you're starving on an island and have a single non-human animal present with you, are you going to $#@% it or eat it? Is that even a valid question, guys?

Quint is what you are trying to say is that meat can meet the need for food, but an animal can't meet the need for sex?

 

[Quintessence]

Eating is vital, but not all eaten material is the same. For instance, I could live without eating my favorite breakfast food, which is fruit jam. I eat it primarily for pleasure, since I can replace it with any other food to perform the same function of being my breakfast. One could argue that eating meat is also for pleasure since meat is replaceable by vegetarian alternatives to perform the same vital function.

I think the point is being missed here... probably becasue folks are not familiar with the phrase "vital need" as it is used in the study of environmental ethics. Something is a "vital need" if it is something that is directly required for an organism's survival (e.g., food, water, shelter). This contrasts to what is called a "peripheral need" or something that is not required for an organism's survival (e.g., sex, entertainment, affluence). It doesn't matter if there are multiple things that can satisfy a particular vital need - the point is that it serves something vital as opposed to peripheral. I'm not suggesting that the many things that satisfy a vital need are "the same" - I'm simply pointing out that eating (whether it's meat or something else) satisfies a vital need, and having sex (particularly with something that isn't a member of one's own species) does not.

When it comes to asking what is ethical, some environmental philosophers have argued that things which sustain vital needs have ethical high ground over those that do not. Thus, the categorical difference between eating meat (a vital need) and having sex with a non-human animal (peripheral need) becomes important. Another element that comes into play here: when an organism satisfies peripheral needs at the expense of the vital needs of another organism, that is a good sign that the behavior is unethical. Hunting for sport would fall into that category - a human is killing another creature to serve the peripheral need of the joy of the hunt or a trophy.

As an aside, I suppose the major problem I have with the "vegetarian high ground" argument is that it disregards the needs of plants. As a lover of plants, that just really grinds me the wrong way. There's no getting around the fact that humans must kill to live. As far as I'm concerned, killing one type of organism is not "more ethical" than killing any other type of organism. What makes something more or less ethical to me is how the creature was treated during its life. And. on both the animal and the plant side, industrial agriculture treats organisms rather poorly.

 

[Aquitaine]

The more you tell yourself that the less willpower you will have, start with one day or meal of the week and decide not to eat meat during that meal. After your comfortable and adapted to that add another. The process can be as slow as you need it to be, change usually doesn't happen overnight.

Aye, I've been thinking about it. Perhaps I should look up some nice vegetarian recipes and give it all a go.

 

[Aquitaine]

Surely if other animals can be slaughtered humanely, then human animals can be slaughtered humanely (as the word "humane" indicates). Describe "humane slaughter" as it applies to human animals.

Funnily enough I actually support voluntary euthanasia. It can be achieved via Nitrogen Asphyxiation for Humans and other animals.

Human meat-eaters say that merely to make themselves feel better about eating other animals. Right? I've never known anyone to identify a biological adaptation that omnivorous mammals have and that humans have that distinguishes humans from other apes.

I think it's a valid point, we are designed to eat both meat and plants, would you complain about other omnivours who eat meat through choice?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I eat meat and have no problems with zoosexuality, within certain parameters.

 

[Aquitaine]

I eat meat and have no problems with zoosexuality, within certain parameters.

Well atleast you're consistant then LOL. But srsly, ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. :/

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well atleast you're consistant then LOL. But srsly, ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. :/

I don't really see the questions as related, personally, but I understand the point of the OP. So it's not a matter of consistency to me.

 

[Aquitaine]

Gah, vegetarians can't eat fish either! Noooooooooooo!
No Salmon, no Haddock, no Tuna!

 

[Valjean]

I think I count 4 categories of arguments about vegetarianism:

Some of the arguments against meat eating presume animals are equal to us. For example arguing that a cow's life of 20 years is being cut short seems like an equality based argument. It argues that a cow's life matters, not merely the quality of it.

It's not that animals are equal to us. It's that the principles that prevent us from killing other humans also applies to animals. It's a question of moral consistency.

Some arguments against meat eating presume we should be kind to animals. So these are like arguments about the inhumane nature of the beef and chicken industries. These don't presume that the lives of animals matter but that their suffering matters.

This seems to me a variation of your first point. Again, if we consider kindness to other people to be a good, why would that principle not apply to non humans, as well?

Some arguments against meat eating are emotionally based. All cows are like puppies and kitty cats. Chickens are like Woodstock.

Again, pretty much the same point. Aren't most concepts of right and wrong emotionally based, in the end?
If we find it emotionally objectionable to raise humans for food, why would that objection not apply to animals?

 

[Valjean]

I think it's a valid point, we are designed to eat both meat and plants, would you complain about other omnivours who eat meat through choice?

But the main support of vegetarianism isn't one of design or history, but principle.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's not that animals are equal to us. It's that the principles that prevent us from killing other humans also applies to animals. It's a question of moral consistency.

This seems to me a variation of your first point. Again, if we consider kindness to other people to be a good, why would that principle not apply to non humans, as well?

Again, pretty much the same point. Aren't most concepts of right and wrong emotionally based, in the end?
If we find it emotionally objectionable to raise humans for food, why would that objection not apply to animals?

I really do encounter arguments that fall under these different approaches. Some people have no trouble with killing animals so long as it is done painlessly. They respond to arguments about the suffering of animals in industry, but they will eat meat. The arguments shape to fit the objections. I understand what you are saying about principles, although it just seems semantically the same argument. If you apply the principle of valuing a human life to valuing an animal's life the argument is in the same group. It is saying a life is a life, arguing against someone who says that human life is not the same as animal life. I think of these four groups as different arguments, because they are different approaches to different kinds of people.

 

[Aquitaine]

But the main support of vegetarianism isn't one of design or history, but principle.

Taking it a step further, moving on to Veganism, using the moral consistency you spoke of earlier, would that render Veganism obsolete, since we consider it acceptable for humans to labour to create products?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think the point is being missed here... probably becasue folks are not familiar with the phrase "vital need" as it is used in the study of environmental ethics. Something is a "vital need" if it is something that is directly required for an organism's survival (e.g., food, water, shelter). This contrasts to what is called a "peripheral need" or something that is not required for an organism's survival (e.g., sex, entertainment, affluence). It doesn't matter if there are multiple things that can satisfy a particular vital need - the point is that it serves something vital as opposed to peripheral. I'm not suggesting that the many things that satisfy a vital need are "the same" - I'm simply pointing out that eating (whether it's meat or something else) satisfies a vital need, and having sex (particularly with something that isn't a member of one's own species) does not.

When it comes to asking what is ethical, some environmental philosophers have argued that things which sustain vital needs have ethical high ground over those that do not. Thus, the categorical difference between eating meat (a vital need) and having sex with a non-human animal (peripheral need) becomes important. Another element that comes into play here: when an organism satisfies peripheral needs at the expense of the vital needs of another organism, that is a good sign that the behavior is unethical. Hunting for sport would fall into that category - a human is killing another creature to serve the peripheral need of the joy of the hunt or a trophy.

As an aside, I suppose the major problem I have with the "vegetarian high ground" argument is that it disregards the needs of plants. As a lover of plants, that just really grinds me the wrong way. There's no getting around the fact that humans must kill to live. As far as I'm concerned, killing one type of organism is not "more ethical" than killing any other type of organism. What makes something more or less ethical to me is how the creature was treated during its life. And. on both the animal and the plant side, industrial agriculture treats organisms rather poorly.

Like I said, the vital need that eating meat serves can be served by a vegetarian diet. The fact that a vegetarian diet can be enough to sustain a person renders meat-eating superfluous.

As for killing plants versus killing animals, I think the most significant difference is that plants can't feel pain or experience suffering in the same way animals do. A human feels more suffering than many animals, and an animal feels more suffering than a plant. My argument here is not that killing animals or plants per se is what is unethical about eating meat; it is the fact that industrialized farming of animals usually subjects them to immense suffering and poor living conditions. Furthermore, a lot of animal execution methods are painful. Plants are incomparable to animals in this regard because they don't possess the ability to experience suffering like animals. Slitting an animal's throat causes the animal pain; picking a flower doesn't cause it pain.

 

[Aquitaine]

Like I said, the vital need that eating meat serves can be served by a vegetarian diet. The fact that a vegetarian diet can be enough to sustain a person renders meat-eating superfluos.

As for killing plants versus killing animals, I think the most significant difference is that plants can't feel pain or experience suffering in the same way animals do. A human feels more suffering than many animals, and an animal feels more suffering than a plant. My argument here is not that killing animals or plants per se is what is unethical about eating meat; it is the fact that industrialized farming of animals usually subjects them to immense suffering and poor living conditions. Furthermore, a lot of animal execution methods are painful. Plants are incomparable to animals in this regard because they don't possess the ability to experience suffering like animals. Slitting an animal's throat causes the animal pain; picking a flower doesn't cause it pain.

I always like to imagine what avenues this debate would go down if it was discovered that plants had their own sort of CNS and sentience. ^_^

 

[Chakra]

As an aside, I suppose the major problem I have with the "vegetarian high ground" argument is that it disregards the needs of plants. As a lover of plants, that just really grinds me the wrong way. There's no getting around the fact that humans must kill to live. As far as I'm concerned, killing one type of organism is not "more ethical" than killing any other type of organism. What makes something more or less ethical to me is how the creature was treated during its life. And. on both the animal and the plant side, industrial agriculture treats organisms rather poorly.

As said before, plants don't have feelings, emotions, nor do they feel pain to the extent sentient beings do (if they do at all). Isn't it better to kill a non-sentient animal than a sentient, loving creature? As a thought experiment, do you really think that mowing the lawn is the same as beating puppies with a baseball bat?
Also, since you really like plants, you should know that a vegan diet save more plants than a meat-eater diet. And humane slaughter does not exist as it is an oxymoron.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I always like to imagine what avenues this debate would go down if it was discovered that plants had their own sort of CNS and sentience. ^_^

The evidence is mounting that they do.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ligent-sentient-book-brilliant-green-internet

Science is merely catching up to what animists and others in tune with all life have known for many thousands of years. Life is life and all is consciousness. There are no true ontological differences between an animal, a plant, a bacteria, etc.