ITT: Morally justify why you eat factory farmed meat.

[pmchugh]

Almost everyone I know does it, and no one I know has ever presented a decent moral argument that supports it.

Can you?

[mrswdk]

inb4 Mets

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Human Wellbeing > Animal* Wellbeing

(*excluding dogs, cats and guinea pigs)

[mrswdk]

Human Wellbeing > Animal* Wellbeing

(*excluding dogs, cats and guinea pigs)

Guinea pig is one of the most farmed animals in the world.

[pmchugh]

Human Wellbeing > Animal* Wellbeing

(*excluding dogs, cats and guinea pigs)

Without the asterix I would have taken you seriously

[hotfire]

Human Wellbeing > Animal* Wellbeing

(*excluding dogs, cats and guinea pigs)

Guinea pig is one of the most farmed animals in the world.

ya they eat that in Peru

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Human Wellbeing > Animal* Wellbeing

(*excluding dogs, cats and guinea pigs)

Without the asterix I would have taken you seriously

It IS the moral argument. Whether its true or not is debatable.

[Kevi]

Human Wellbeing > Animal* Wellbeing

(*excluding dogs, cats and guinea pigs)

Guinea pig is one of the most farmed animals in the world.

ya they eat that in Peru

It is very much regarded as a delicacy there

[pmchugh]

Human Wellbeing > Animal* Wellbeing

(*excluding dogs, cats and guinea pigs)

Without the asterix I would have taken you seriously

It IS the moral argument. Whether its true or not is debatable.

I did caveat my OP with the word "decent"

Human well-being is not dependent on whether or not you eat factory farmed meat. Except in the most trivial of senses, e.g. taste. It can easily be argued that human well-being is actually diminished by animal products and they way in which we consume them.

Animal well-being most certainly is suffering though. The reality for factory farmed animals is a life in tragic conditions; lacking sunlight, grass and affection and full of physical, emotional and psychological pain.

[Dukasaur]

It's a cruel world. The chicken is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

I did caveat my OP with the word "decent"

Human well-being is not dependent on whether or not you eat factory farmed meat. Except in the most trivial of senses, e.g. taste. It can easily be argued that human well-being is actually diminished by animal products and they way in which we consume them.

Animal well-being most certainly is suffering though. The reality for factory farmed animals is a life in tragic conditions; lacking sunlight, grass and affection and full of physical, emotional and psychological pain.

Either we have an ambition of meat available to all and factory farm to achieve that.

Or we eradicate factory farming and make meat a luxury for the elite.

The first option represents; Human Wellbeing > Animal Wellbeing

[mrswdk]

It's a cruel world. The chicken is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.

And also, by eating that animal you are preventing someone like a serial rapist or a Japanese from being able to consume and derive nutrition from it, and thus can be said to be doing your bit to reduce evildoers' capacity to do evil.

[pmchugh]

I did caveat my OP with the word "decent"

Human well-being is not dependent on whether or not you eat factory farmed meat. Except in the most trivial of senses, e.g. taste. It can easily be argued that human well-being is actually diminished by animal products and they way in which we consume them.

Animal well-being most certainly is suffering though. The reality for factory farmed animals is a life in tragic conditions; lacking sunlight, grass and affection and full of physical, emotional and psychological pain.

Either we have an ambition of meat available to all and factory farm to achieve that.

Or we eradicate factory farming and make meat a luxury for the elite.

The first option represents; Human Wellbeing > Animal Wellbeing

I think any reasonable person can see that not all human well-being trumps all animal well-being. Take a sadistic person who enjoys kicking pigs, for example.

In order for it to be any kind of reasonable moral argument you would have to describe in what meaningful ways you would suffer if you didn't eat animals, and why that is more important than the the animals suffering.

[hotfire]

i think everyone forgets that humans are animals and the anthropocentric ideology is a lie

[pmchugh]

It's a cruel world. The chicken is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.

You could replace chicken with a lot of different words there and immediately see the absurdity of your position.

[KoolBak]

Top of the food chain people...I rest my case.

[Dukasaur]

i think everyone forgets that humans are animals and the anthropocentric ideology is a lie

Changing the anthrocentricity in the thread would not change the issue.

If lions had the capacity to factory-farm zebras, they would do so.

It's a cruel world. The chicken is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.

You could replace chicken with a lot of different words there and immediately see the absurdity of your position.

Not at all.

The mushroom is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it. The tomato is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it. The bison is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.

Now, I suppose you could replace that with things which are inedible, and thus create absurd statements like "the spark plugs in my car are going to die whether I eat them or not, so I might as well eat them." However, you would have to deliberately select inedible things to do that. As long as the item in question is edible, the statement is not absurd.

[pmchugh]

Top of the food chain people...I rest my case.

I hear this all the time and still have no idea what it is meant by it. Is it an argument to nature or an argument that because we have power it is OK to exploit said power?

It's a cruel world. The chicken is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.

You could replace chicken with a lot of different words there and immediately see the absurdity of your position.

Not at all.

The mushroom is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it. The tomato is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it. The bison is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.

Now, I suppose you could replace that with things which are inedible, and thus create absurd statements like "the spark plugs in my car are going to die whether I eat them or not, so I might as well eat them." However, you would have to deliberately select inedible things to do that. As long as the item in question is edible, the statement is not absurd.

It's a cruel world. The family dog is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.
It's a cruel world. The toddler is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.
It's a cruel world. The monkey is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.
It's a cruel world. The Jewish people are going to die whether I eat them or not, so I might as well eat them.*

Because the world is cruel, and because death is inevitable are not justifications for killing. Never mind the whole life of suffering and captivity that the chicken was bred into by your purchasing.

*note that I am not saying these statements are all equally wrong, just that the argument presented makes no sense.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Almost everyone I know does it, and no one I know has ever presented a decent moral argument that supports it.

Can you?

I'm sorry, I dont see in the opening post where you asked us to justify a moral argument, merely present one.

I have done so, can I have a cookie now?

[PLAYER57832]

Almost everyone I know does it, and no one I know has ever presented a decent moral argument that supports it.

Can you?

The theory is not unlike the argument for cities versus huge suburbs, that is, the impact is concentrated and resources can be used with "optimum efficiency". Theoretically containing the impacts makes the problems easier to deal with.

The problem, as with just about any "efficiency" or "mass quantity" model is that it makes sense ONLY if you ignore externalities.

Efficiency makes sense only when there is true waste. Otherwise, its not overall efficiency, its shifting resources. Its generally a shift from small amounts over many to a larger amount in the hands of few. When you add in that many of these operations are truly owned by individuals or groups for whom the operation is little more than figures on a balance sheet.. it becomes very, very easy to ignore even things that are outright abuses.

What we really need is to stop pretending that each part of our economy is disparate. This is never more true than in a farm. A truly efficient farming system is not measured strictly by profitable output, but by sustainability and overall impacts. That can employ some elements of "factory" farming, but the individual portions need to be managed separately. For example, it makes sense for farms to coordinate certain types of vet care such as vaccinations, breeding, etc. Even rangeland.... in some cases it is better to have smaller groups that live in a large pasture big enough to sustain them. In other case you want to move large groups of animals through different areas. Sheep, goats, are particularly adapted toward the latter type of system, cattle more typically the first.

Dairy animals, to contrast, need to be groups close to humans, and benefit from being relatively near crops. Chickens can be efficient in very, very small areas, though containing diseases like the bird flu might be only possible in the largest systems (even though they are more guilty of spreading the diseases initially).

[pmchugh]

Almost everyone I know does it, and no one I know has ever presented a decent moral argument that supports it.

Can you?

I'm sorry, I dont see in the opening post where you asked us to justify a moral argument, merely present one.

I have done so, can I have a cookie now?

Sorry you have to present a "decent" one! The (dairy-free) cookies stay in the jar for now

[Dukasaur]

It's a cruel world. The chicken is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.

You could replace chicken with a lot of different words there and immediately see the absurdity of your position.

Not at all.

The mushroom is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it. The tomato is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it. The bison is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.

Now, I suppose you could replace that with things which are inedible, and thus create absurd statements like "the spark plugs in my car are going to die whether I eat them or not, so I might as well eat them." However, you would have to deliberately select inedible things to do that. As long as the item in question is edible, the statement is not absurd.

It's a cruel world. The family dog is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.
It's a cruel world. The toddler is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.
It's a cruel world. The monkey is going to die whether I eat it or not, so I might as well eat it.
It's a cruel world. The Jewish people are going to die whether I eat them or not, so I might as well eat them.*

Because the world is cruel, and because death is inevitable are not justifications for killing. Never mind the whole life of suffering and captivity that the chicken was bred into by your purchasing.

*note that I am not saying these statements are all equally wrong, just that the argument presented makes no sense.

I have no moral reason not to eat the family dog; only emotional ones. I love the family dog, therefore I choose not to eat it. It's not a moral imperative, but a subjective choice.

Not killing people for food is a Social Contract issue, and further than that it's an instinctive taboo. Virtually all species turn away from killing and eating their own kind, except in dire need. Just one of those instinctive taboos that Evolution has given us. If we killed each other for food we might easily hunt ourselves down to the point of being at risk of extinction. Thus we have a strong aversion to it, and yet, in times of extreme need people have eaten each other, as do other animals. This is even true of essentially herbivorous species like field mice.

If I did eat people, I would not discriminate between Jews, Christians, and Buddhists.

I have no reason not to eat monkeys, except that monkey is not generally offered at the restaurants I frequent. If I was in Thailand or Indonesia, I might eat monkey at some of the restaurants there that serve it. I would ask about the source of the monkey, and I would not eat one that was on the Endangered list, because I believe in preserving biodiversity. I would have no problem eating a monkey that was from a thriving species.

[pmchugh]

Almost everyone I know does it, and no one I know has ever presented a decent moral argument that supports it.

Can you?

The theory is not unlike the argument for cities versus huge suburbs, that is, the impact is concentrated and resources can be used with "optimum efficiency". Theoretically containing the impacts makes the problems easier to deal with.

The problem, as with just about any "efficiency" or "mass quantity" model is that it makes sense ONLY if you ignore externalities.

Efficiency makes sense only when there is true waste. Otherwise, its not overall efficiency, its shifting resources. Its generally a shift from small amounts over many to a larger amount in the hands of few. When you add in that many of these operations are truly owned by individuals or groups for whom the operation is little more than figures on a balance sheet.. it becomes very, very easy to ignore even things that are outright abuses.

What we really need is to stop pretending that each part of our economy is disparate. This is never more true than in a farm. A truly efficient farming system is not measured strictly by profitable output, but by sustainability and overall impacts. That can employ some elements of "factory" farming, but the individual portions need to be managed separately. For example, it makes sense for farms to coordinate certain types of vet care such as vaccinations, breeding, etc. Even rangeland.... in some cases it is better to have smaller groups that live in a large pasture big enough to sustain them. In other case you want to move large groups of animals through different areas. Sheep, goats, are particularly adapted toward the latter type of system, cattle more typically the first.

Dairy animals, to contrast, need to be groups close to humans, and benefit from being relatively near crops. Chickens can be efficient in very, very small areas, though containing diseases like the bird flu might be only possible in the largest systems (even though they are more guilty of spreading the diseases initially).

Perhaps you are more idealistic than me but I can't possibly see any system which could function without causing mass suffering while producing the amounts of meat and poultry that are demanded by our current eating habits. Land use for agriculture has already decimated the Amazon, and if we were to give cows more room to roam as you suggest then our consumption would almost certainly have to fall (never mind what happens when countries like China radically up their meat intake). The same is applicable for Pigs and Chickens which often live in horribly cramped conditions.

Even if it were possible to set up a system in which the animals had a good life (say we terraformed Mars and let them live there) that is not our reality and nor will it be any time soon.

[betiko]

Because we can! Because it s better than eating factory farmed humans.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

I think any reasonable person can see that not all human well-being trumps all animal well-being. Take a sadistic person who enjoys kicking pigs, for example.

In order for it to be any kind of reasonable moral argument you would have to describe in what meaningful ways you would suffer if you didn't eat animals, and why that is more important than the the animals suffering.

Kicking pigs has nothing to do with this discussion.

We would not benefit from a protein rich diet, that is suffering on some scale. As our well being trumps the animals, it is worthwhile.

You want me to admit that causing suffering to animals should be in some way accountable. I'm sorry but that doesnt fit with the moral position I have chosen to adopt here. You said present a case, you did not say that it had to fit with your view of the world.

All animal suffering is worthwhile if it provides benefit to humans. Kicking a pig does not provide a benefit and is therefore not worthwhile. Factory farming does so is worthwhile.

Why would i want a dairy free cookie?

fp'd

Perhaps you are more idealistic than me but I can't possibly see any system which could function without causing mass suffering while producing the amounts of meat and poultry that are demanded by our current eating habits.

Precisely. Factory farming is a necessity as I established earlier.