The Ethics of Eating Meat

[Vinayaka]

Any diet can of course lead to deficiencies and hence health problems. If someone intends to make a significant change to their diet they would be best advised to ensure they will be getting all the nutrients they need (and nothing to excess). This is certainly possible with a vegetarian diet. Simply cutting out a significant element of one's diet (eg meat) without making suitable nutritional replacements is probably not a good idea.

That one goes both ways. Meat certainly doesn't contain all the necessary ingredients for health.

 

[McBell]

The question I asked at the start of this thread is not just whether people think eating meat is ethical, but why. What ethical reasoning do you use to arrive at your conclusion? Do you believe mistreatment of animals is unethical?

Is it unethical to accept that it is ethical in my neck of the woods to eat meat?

Of course, next week it may be unethical in my neck of the woods to eat meat.

Mistreatment of animals is unethical in my neck of the woods.

 

[McBell]

Fair enough you consider it normal, ethical and you are in the majority where you live (probably true everywhere). But why is it a bold EMPTY claim?

I do not know of any other way to break it down for you.

 

[Left Coast]

Is it unethical to accept that it is ethical in my neck of the woods to eat meat?

Of course, next week it may be unethical in my neck of the woods to eat meat.

Mistreatment of animals is unethical in my neck of the woods.

So is the basis of your ethics just, whatever most people around you do is ethical?

 

[Secret Chief]

I do not know of any other way to break it down for you.

I can't see that you have broken it down at all. You haven't addressed why the claim is an empty one.

 

[McBell]

So is the basis of your ethics just, whatever most people around you do is ethical?

Yes.
Because that is what ethics is.
The rules/regulations/laws/etc. of the groups you are in.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes.
Because that is what ethics is.
The rules/regulations/laws/etc. of the groups you are in.

Not exactly. Ethics is the philosophical study of what one ought do. That may or may not align with the norms of whatever group you happen to be in, depending what you base your ethical principles on. What you seem to be arguing is a kind of ethical argumentum ad populum, that a thing is ethical simply because most people around you say it is.

 

[McBell]

What you seem to be arguing is a kind of ethical argumentum ad populum, that a thing is ethical simply because most people around you say it is.

Except that it is not an argumentum ad populum because that is what ethics is, group morality.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yes.
Because that is what ethics is.
The rules/regulations/laws/etc. of the groups you are in.

What is the bold empty claim of vegetarianism? (Which is an abstract notion, nothing to do with who eats what in your locality)

 

[McBell]

What is the bold empty claim of vegetarianism? (Which is an abstract notion, nothing to do with who eats what in your locality)

No idea what you are talking about.

I said the claim that eating meat is unethical is a bold empty claim.
Which it is.
Because it is in fact ethical in my neck of the woods to eat meat.

 

[Secret Chief]

No idea what you are talking about.

I said the claim that eating meat is unethical is a bold empty claim.
Which it is.
Because it is in fact ethical in my neck of the woods to eat meat.

You seem to be using ethics in its very narrowest sense ie your local group ethics? I was meaning in the global sense of ethics being the philosophy of right and wrong, above and beyond a particular group. Ethics is often studied in the abstract, as concepts, without reference to location or groups.

"The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior."

- Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

My understanding of the OP was to consider the ethics of eating meat in this sense.

 

[Watchmen]

The ethics of eating meat. I find the issue difficult considering we could not have evolved to our present state without meat consumption. Now that we're here and are "enlightened," does that mean we should stop doing the very thing that allowed us to get here? Maybe. Maybe not. My personal opinion is that there is nothing inherently unethical with the act of eating meat. The ethical questions come to play when we look at how we get the meat. For example, factory farms are unethical in my opinion, but I'm all for the responsible and humane raising of animals for consumption. But what is "humane"? I suppose that's up for debate.

 

[Left Coast]

Except that it is not an argumentum ad populum because that is what ethics is, group morality.

No, it isn't. For some people that's how they base their ethics. Ethics is simply the philosophical study of what one ought do, ie of moral duties or obligations. Some people have ethical beliefs or systems that they adhere to completely independent of what anyone else thinks, whether they're in the majority in their culture, etc.

So if everyone in your neck of the woods starts torturing their pets, do you think you ought to do the same, simply because everyone around you is doing so? If not, why not? What other ethical considerations must one make besides just what other people around you think they ought do?

 

[Thief]

That one goes both ways. Meat certainly doesn't contain all the necessary ingredients for health.

I used to watch a chef....who was also a biochemist....

and he reported that consuming white navy beans and lentils
was chemically similar to eating steak

beans would be cheaper
lentils to fill the gap for what the beans don't have

but he didn't mention quantity
or the intestinal problems

and our tract is that of meat eating
not grazing

 

[Secret Chief]

and our tract is that of meat eating
not grazing

Nothing wrong in humans grazing. Humans are omnivores (not carnivores or herbivores) - hence the variety of our teeth.

 

[McBell]

No, it isn't. For some people that's how they base their ethics. Ethics is simply the philosophical study of what one ought do, ie of morality duties or obligations. Some people have ethical beliefs or systems that they adhere to completely independent of what anyone else thinks, whether they're in the majority in their culture, etc.

So now ethics is nothing more than philosophy?

So if everyone in your neck of the woods starts torturing their pets, do you think you ought to do the same, simply because everyone around you is doing so?

No idea where this came from.
Or what it has to do with the topic at hand.
I was never asked what *I* think of eating meat.
Only if it is ethical.

If not, why not?

IMO
Causing undo harm is wrong.

What other ethical considerations must one make besides just what other people around you think they ought do?

I do not understand the question as written.

 

[Left Coast]

So now ethics is nothing more than philosophy?

Yes, ethics is literally a branch of philosophy.

Ethics - Wikipedia

No idea where this came from.
Or what it has to do with the topic at hand.
I was never asked what *I* think of eating meat.
Only if it is ethical.

Then it appears the issue is semantic. By asking if you think eating meat is ethical, I'm asking what you think of it, ie, should you do it?

 

[Thief]

Nothing wrong in humans grazing. Humans are omnivores (not carnivores or herbivores) - hence the variety of our teeth.

granted we can survive and do need some vegetation.

but we do not graze

 

[Secret Chief]

granted we can survive and do need some vegetation.

but we do not graze

I do when there's biscuits in the house

 

[Thief]

with sausage?

gravy?