ITT: Morally justify why you eat factory farmed meat.

[mrswdk]

I've heard several people refer to open plan office floors as 'pig farms'.

Does that mean it's also immoral to use any products or services produced by office workers?

[pmchugh]

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.

Firstly, let me say that you misunderstood my point. I will point out what I think are some flaws in your arguments but even if I couldn't that would not deter from the absurdity of your initial post. The fact that you have framed your justification for eating/not-eating other animals differently shows that.

On family dogs: worryingly sounds like you only care about your own enjoyment rather than genuinely experiencing empathy for the dog.

On humans: saying something is taboo speaks about a social groups reaction to something not to the morality of it. Eating for survival is different from eating for convenience.

On Monkeys: why is biodiversity important to you and are you unaware of the impacts of animal agriculture on biodiversity?

Overall: I am shocked by the lack of morality in any of your eating choices, although impressed with your consistency. If there were any dog meat fast food places, or monkey meat fast food places where I live they would be shut down within a day due to moral outrage. Do you believe that unnecessary killing of sentient creatures is bad thing? Do you believe that unnecessary suffering of sentient creatures is a bad thing? I go no indication from your post that you did, regardless of the species that you discussed.

[pmchugh]

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

Your brain on meat.

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.

Protein is easy to get from plant sources. Gorillas don't seem to be lacking, there are vegan athletes and bodybuilders as well. Even if you take pasta it is like 5% protein, it is quite hard to be protein deficient without being calorie deficient. According to the American deitetic association:

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

I do not see that you have presented a case that demonstrates any non-trivial benefits to human well-being.

Kicking a pig could cause a sadist pleasure, which could increase his/her well-being. That is entirely possible and therefore relevant to placing all human well-being above all animal well-being as it is a simple example of justifying trivial human benefit for clear animal suffering.

[Bernie Sanders]

In the future, the factory farmed meat you'll eat will be raised without brains. So, no suffering involved.

No longer will we be able to play with our pigs and chickens before we butcher them.

[PLAYER57832]

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

Not true on any level. That is a false dichotomy that has been presented by agribusiness.

In truth, there are many ways to improve farming/increase production of all, including meat, without resorting to huge factory farms. Ironically, its crops that show the best increase in production by using more "modern" or "industrialized methods. This does not mean employing/utilizing animals for protein is less efficient, it means that the current big model of using grains to feed livestock housed in huge barns is inefficient.

An efficient system would put the larger animals on rangeland, with some individual disbursement (small holdings for personal use). Chickens, rabbits other smaller animals (probably even guinea pig) can be raised by families, etc. This method is precisely opposite of our current methods, but can be quite efficient.

[Metsfanmax]

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

You mean anthropocentricity. You can't just drop the 'po.' Anthropo comes from the Greek for "human," so an abbreviation to "anthro" is not etymologically correct. Hence, anthropology, not anthrology.

[tzor]

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

It is difficult to find a proper alternative. (Not impossible, merely difficult ...)

[/]

Morality proper doesn't exist, but I can logically explain why I choose to.

A living being will generally attempt to derive as much benefit possible to itself, this is achieved through flawed mechanisms such as pleasure. A thinking being will also generally try to avoid anything dangerous to itself, and therefor stress or pain. Generally we do not avoid the former unless the retribution of the later is immediate or physiologically trained (therefor morality).

Eating meat derives pleasure, so much so that even herbivores will generally partake opportunistically. Also, since we consume creatures that are of no threat to us, we suffer have no (direct) negative consequence for choosing not to coexist peacefully, unlike other things people disapprove of, such as murder or theft. Factory farming achieves the most reliable and easily obtained method of this pleasure. In order to avoid this most convenient "cruelty", I would need to undertake some personal loss; finances, research time, commute time, new recipe books, etc. for a negligible amount of overall greater difference. Since this is not yet a law or a social more, this would require me to care about someone or something more than I care about myself, as it is not attached to a personal desire nor a personal displeasure.

This attitude may change as society does, or if a mass shortage or price increase occurs, it might depend of the taste of insects.

[hotfire]

feeding herbivores grains laced with carcinogenic pesticides that lack important minor nutrients like selenium is bad for the organism
it is therefore bad for the carnivore that eats that herbivore
it is immoral to consistently feed ourselves and others something bad for us

a grass fed ranging herbivore does get important minor nutrients that are good for the organism often without the added pesticides
it is therefore good for the carnivore that eats that herbivore
it is moral to consistently feed ourselves and others something good for us

**sorry for not staying on topic

[Serbia]

I don't need to feel morally justified when eating my steak, I just need it to be tasty and leave me satisfied.

Bollocks.

[Army of GOD]

Why do I have to justify anything morally? I am proudly immoral

[tzor]

I don't need to feel morally justified when eating my steak, I just need it to be tasty and leave me satisfied.

Until it KILLS YOU.

Perhaps you need to add "and healthy" to that.

Here ... let me help you a little ...

EAT MORE BISON ...
EAT MORE DUCK ...
EAT MORE LAMB ...


Oh and while we are at it ... we have too many deer on Long Island ...

EAT MORE VENISON ...

[mrswdk]

inb4 Mets

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

You mean anthropocentricity. You can't just drop the 'po.' Anthropo comes from the Greek for "human," so an abbreviation to "anthro" is not etymologically correct. Hence, anthropology, not anthrology.

I claim my prize.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Not really MrsWDK, as we all know you meant inb4 Mets agrees that factory farming meat is immoral, and not inb4 Mets corrects grammar.

[mrswdk]

No. I meant that Mets would post in this thread, and indeed he did.

How are them grapes, Ginkie?

[Metsfanmax]

WCG is right. I wasn't going to post in this thread at all because I only comment on this issue in threads not related to it, usually derailing those threads. When I saw mrswdk's post I interpreted that as a challenge to find a way to respond that had nothing to do with the topic.

[mrswdk]

I successfully predicted your involvement in this thread, and then exposed you as a derailer just moments later. mrswdk strikes again and again! Boom!

[Metsfanmax]

You didn't "predict" my involvement, you caused it. If you hadn't posted that, I never would have posted either.

Threadception.

mrswdk strikes again and again! Boom!

OK there, Phatscotty.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

WCG is right.

[mrswdk]

You didn't "predict" my involvement, you caused it. If you hadn't posted that, I never would have posted either.

Threadception.

Boom!

[mrswdk]

All I see is two guys so desperate to snatch a victory from that Chinawoman that they've had to resort to putting their fingers in their ears and shouting 'lalala'.

Reminds me of my Asian Americans thread.

[mrswdk]

And that's game over! I now declare this thread property of China.







Move along now.

[Metsfanmax]

All I see is two guys so desperate to snatch a victory from that Chinawoman that they've had to resort to putting their fingers in their ears and shouting 'lalala'.

Nonsense. Consider your state of mind just before you pressed the "Submit" button on that post. You were sure at that moment that I would have posted in this thread. Now if you had changed your mind and not posted that, you still would have been sure that I was going to post. So you didn't predict anything correctly; it was only the fact that you chose to post "inb4" rather than whether I was truly going to participate or not that resulted in my participation.

As usual, logic prevails. Also, I got you to derail the thread for me with your China bullshit, so double win.

[mrswdk]

you didn't predict anything correctly

Yes I did. I predicted that you would post in this thread, and then you did.

It's really not that difficult.

[Metsfanmax]

you didn't predict anything correctly

Yes I did. I predicted that you would post in this thread

Yes, but at the time you made this prediction, it was not correct. It was only when you posted that prediction on CC that it caused me to post.