I am a meat-eater looking to change my view.

[jasonk]

I have been studying veganism, thinking and reading about arguments for and against meat-eating, and I have been thinking about going vegan, so I would like to engage in a discussion where I am open to change my view. I have three ideas that I have been thinking about.

Here is my first idea.

There is a moral difference between killing an animal and buying meat at the store. The person who killed the animal is the evil person. The one who bought the meat at the store is not an evil person. Yet the one who bought meat at the store is not doing some moral good either. If one refused to buy the meat, one is doing something morally good. I think there is room for neutral territory here. I can basically flesh it out like this:

Killing an animal - evil
Buying meat at a store - neutral (not good or evil)
Refusing to eat carcasses of killed animals - good

The actual killing of animals is wrong. Those who kill animals have moral autonomy and ought to be held responsible for their evil actions.

Going to the store, putting some meat in a shopping cart, and exchanging some paper for the meat, are not evil actions. These actions are no more evil than catching a bus or turning my computer on.

If I knew that the local owner of a restaurant was a shitty person who insults everyone, calls people racial slurs, and underpays his employees, while it would be good to refuse to eat at his restaurant, me eating at his restaurant does not make me a bad person. He is the shitty person. I am just a person eating at a restaurant.

Counter argument.

You basically agree that eating meat is wrong. If everyone who kills animals was stopped, everyone would have to be vegan anyway.

Response

I think there is a huge difference here though. One idea says that pretty much everyone is an evil doer, while the other says the ones actually doing evil are evil. Pretty much all of us own clothes made in sweatshops. Pretty much all of us own phones and computers made with minerals mined using exploited labor. Pretty much all of us contribute to global warming. I don't think that we are evil people though. I don't think that everyone who lived in the year 1700 was evil and deserved punishment because the sugar they put in their tea was grown using slaves. We are people who recognize flaws in a system and who would like to see the system reformed.

In the mean time though, I don't think it's wrong to eat the meat. In fact it might, perhaps, even be good to eat the meat so that the lives of the animals immorally slain are not done so in total vanity. And those of us with the greater willpower who can afford to be vegan and spend their time proselytizing, we can hold them in high regard and excellent moral esteem. At the same time let's not alienate the people we are proselytizing too by saying they are evil people. Instead perhaps we ought to focus our efforts on the actual evil being done, that being the actual killing, torturing, and otherwise exploitation of sentient beings.

How were you convinced that veganism is correct? Were you harshly told that you were an evil person who deserves to be punished? I don't think so. More likely you were shown the vicious state of affairs that animals endure, and through seeing the evil acts were persuaded that the system desperately needs reformed. And in your strong desire to see the system reformed, you stopped eating meat and became an advocate for veganism.

Here are my second and third arguments.

Part One: Concerning Wild Animals

At what point does it become wrong to kill something? I've noticed the debate on abortion is very similar. Is it wrong to kill a 20 week old fetus? Is it wrong to kill a 22 week old fetus? What is the difference?

Sidestepping politics, the exact delineations seem to be arbitrary, however the extremes seem to be quite real. The delineation between a complex creature which can be killed with moral immunity and one which cannot be killed with moral immunity is real in so far as it would be ridiculous to suppose there is no such delineation. For example, I think bacteria, plants, dust mites, etc can almost always be killed with moral immunity and dolphins, chimpanzees, etc almost always cannot be killed with moral immunity.

I intentionally say 'almost always' because I think what gives one the right to kill a creature is twofold - logical universality and consequential benefits.

Logical universality - all life capable of moral consciousness must be able to practice a categorical imperative with no contradiction resulting. The only life I am aware of which is capable of moral consciousness is human. Most creatures are not conscious at all, and those who are conscious, almost all are just barely in comparison to human beings.

Consequential benefits - does the treatment or killing of a certain creature produce a net positive for all creatures? If yes then treat the creature, if no then don't treat the creature.

Seeing as non-human life is incapable of moral consciousness, our only guide to moral permission concerning non-human life is consequential benefits.

Does all life suffer? Does pain = suffering? What benefits would a creature gain upon killing and eating an animal if the creature was completely supplied and sustained on a plant based diet?

Suppose a panda bear, one capable of surviving solely on bamboo and other plants, kills and eats a squirrel or misc rodent. A vegan may suggest that since the bear is not capable of moral consciousness, it killing and eating a squirrel is not a moral matter, however, the bear's capacity of moral consciousness doesn't matter. Does the killing of the squirrel create a net positive or net negative for all creatures? The squirrel seemed to experience a lot of pain in its death. The bear's enjoyment of the meal does not seem to equal or be greater than the squirrel's suffering. Would preventing this bear from reproducing, and thus preventing any more panda bears from mercilessly killing and eating rodents, create a net positive for all life? I think it logically follows. We ought to prevent pandas from killing rodents.

The larger picture however is different. The panda is a part of its ecosystem. If the panda did not kill the rodent, other predators would fill the niche. What is the difference between having a panda fill this niche or a carnivore obligated to eat meat? I don't notice a difference. Therefore it doesn't follow that we ought to prevent pandas from killing rodents.

A similar situation occurs with deer and human hunters. Is there a difference between a human hunter and wolves/mountain lions concerning the keeping of deer populations in harmony with the greater ecosystem? I don't think so. In fact I think human hunters are a far safer alternative. I would rather have a battalion of human hunters keep my local deer population in check instead of a host of mountain lions. And I do not think there is a categorical imperative which speaks against the reasonable stewardship of a wild deer population.

Part 2: Concerning Farmed Animals

There is an important distinction between pain and suffering. While the distinction is, like most everyday, nonscientific distinctions, somewhat blurred at the edges, it is, nevertheless, a valuable and intuitively satisfying mark or measure of moral importance. When I step on your toe, causing a brief but definite (and definitely conscious) pain, I do you scant harm -- typically none at all. The pain, though intense, is too brief to matter, and I have done no long-term damage to your foot. The idea that you "suffer" for a second or two is a risible misapplication of that important notion, and even when we grant that my causing you a few seconds pain may irritate you a few more seconds or even minutes -- especially if you think I did it deliberately -- the pain itself, as a brief, negatively-signed experience, is of vanishing moral significance. If in stepping on your toe I have interrupted your singing of the aria, thereby ruining your operatic career, that is quite another matter.
Many discussions seem to assume tacitly: (1) that suffering and pain are the same thing, on a different scale; (2) that all pain is "experienced pain"; and (3) that "amount of suffering" is to be calculated ("in principle") by just adding up all the pains (the awfulness of each of which is determined by duration-times-intensity). These assumptions, looked at dispassionately in the cold light of day -- a difficult feat for some partisans -- are ludicrous.

A little exercise may help: would you exchange the sum total of the suffering you will experience during the next year for one five-minute blast of no doubt excruciating agony that summed up to the "same amount" of total pain-and-suffering? I certainly would. In fact, I would gladly take the bargain even if you "doubled" or "quadrupled" the total annual amount -- just so long as it would be all over in five minutes. (We are assuming, of course, that this horrible episode does not kill me or render me insane -- after the pain is over -- or have other long-term effects that amount to or cause me further suffering; the deal was to pack all the suffering into one jolt.) I expect anybody would be happy to make such a deal.
But it doesn't really make sense. It implies that the benefactor who provided such a service gratis to all, ex hypothesi, would be doubling or quadrupling the world's suffering -- and the world would love him for it. It seems obvious to me that something is radically wrong with the assumptions that permit us to sum and compare suffering in any such straightforward way.

*This is an excerpt taken from this article http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/d ... sness.html

If one were to suffer whatsoever, even just a little, should that one have not been born? I've visited pig confinements and inspected the pigs for myself. I've seen how they actually live and what they do in their daily lives. I'm not totally convinced that the pigs are actually suffering. All their food is freely given, as much as they want. They are sheltered from the cold, wind, storms, heat, etc. And they don't have to work for any of it. This seems to be all pigs want. They don't jump out of their pens. They don't try to break through the confinement windows. If they were as stressed and suffering as some would lead you to believe, the pigs would break out of the confinement. If they tried hard enough, they could. Believe me; they are strong enough to do it. The confinements are not that robust. They aren't like prisons, where every window is barred. In fact the windows are made of a screen mesh, which if the pigs were as stressed and suffering as many would want you to believe, they would literally be jumping out of their pens and flinging themselves through those mesh windows. If the pigs wanted to escape badly enough, they would.

Farm animals certainly experience momentary pains, but how much actual suffering do farm animals experience? Do farm animals care that they never frolic through the grass, never drink from babbling brooks, never have the chance to rear offspring, or never reach maturity? Do farm animals fear the idea of not existing? Do farm animals have a concept of their own consciousness? Do farm animals even know that they are alive? When I cause a farm animal a brief but painful zap by electrocuting its brain, killing it instantly at the butcher, the farm animal consciously feels the pain, but I'm not totally convinced that the momentary pain has very much moral significance. The farm animal does not experience the suffering a human would experience by being imprisoned on a farm, eating one type of food, and being killed upon reaching maturity. The farm animal doesn't have a concept of itself. The farm animal doesn't know that it is alive and that that is something of worth separate from raw matter.

[_Doc]

I have been studying veganism, thinking and reading about arguments for and against meat-eating, and I have been thinking about going vegan, so I would like to engage in a discussion where I am open to change my view. I have three ideas that I have been thinking about.

Here is my first idea.

There is a moral difference between killing an animal and buying meat at the store. The person who killed the animal is the evil person. The one who bought the meat at the store is not an evil person. Yet the one who bought meat at the store is not doing some moral good either. If one refused to buy the meat, one is doing something morally good. I think there is room for neutral territory here. I can basically flesh it out like this:

Killing an animal - evil
Buying meat at a store - neutral (not good or evil)
Refusing to eat carcasses of killed animals - good

I agree with that.

In the mean time though, I don't think it's wrong to eat the meat. In fact it might, perhaps, even be good to eat the meat so that the lives of the animals immorally slain are not done so in total vanity. And those of us with the greater willpower who can afford to be vegan and spend their time proselytizing, we can hold them in high regard and excellent moral esteem. At the same time let's not alienate the people we are proselytizing too by saying they are evil people. Instead perhaps we ought to focus our efforts on the actual evil being done, that being the actual killing, torturing, and otherwise exploitation of sentient beings.

So Humane Slaughter?
So eat them because you feel bad for them being killed?

How were you convinced that veganism is correct? Were you harshly told that you were an evil person who deserves to be punished? I don't think so. More likely you were shown the vicious state of affairs that animals endure, and through seeing the evil acts were persuaded that the system desperately needs reformed. And in your strong desire to see the system reformed, you stopped eating meat and became an advocate for veganism.

That made me laughed a bit, "Were you harshly told that you were an evil person who deserves to be punished?"
What is this the Bible?(JK) No I learned how my meat was made, it made feel sick and went vegan. Not to mention why would I kill to live when I can consume plant based food and still thrive. I still eat vegan meats.

Here are my second and third arguments.

Part One: Concerning Wild Animals

At what point does it become wrong to kill something? I've noticed the debate on abortion is very similar. Is it wrong to kill a 20 week old fetus? Is it wrong to kill a 22 week old fetus? What is the difference?

My rule is if that baby can survive without help from doctors then child should not be allowed to be aborted. But, that is just my opinion.

Sidestepping politics, the exact delineations seem to be arbitrary, however the extremes seem to be quite real. The delineation between a complex creature which can be killed with moral immunity and one which cannot be killed with moral immunity is real in so far as it would be ridiculous to suppose there is no such delineation. For example, I think bacteria, plants, dust mites, etc can almost always be killed with moral immunity and dolphins, chimpanzees, etc almost always cannot be killed with moral immunity.

I intentionally say 'almost always' because I think what gives one the right to kill a creature is twofold - logical universality and consequential benefits.

Logical universality - all life capable of moral consciousness must be able to practice a categorical imperative with no contradiction resulting. The only life I am aware of which is capable of moral consciousness is human. Most creatures are not conscious at all, and those who are conscious, almost all are just barely in comparison to human beings.

Consequential benefits - does the treatment or killing of a certain creature produce a net positive for all creatures? If yes then treat the creature, if no then don't treat the creature.

Seeing as non-human life is incapable of moral consciousness, our only guide to moral permission concerning non-human life is consequential benefits.

Does all life suffer? Does pain = suffering? What benefits would a creature gain upon killing and eating an animal if the creature was completely supplied and sustained on a plant based diet?

Not all creature have the same level of conscience. bacteria and plants do live but do not show any evidence of emotions that animals do.

You should read this Thread https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... =22&t=2003 About fish and their ability or lack of to feel pain/suffering.

Part 2: Concerning Farmed Animals
Farm animals certainly experience momentary pains, but how much actual suffering do farm animals experience? Do farm animals care that they never frolic through the grass, never drink from babbling brooks, never have the chance to rear offspring, or never reach maturity? Do farm animals fear the idea of not existing? Do farm animals have a concept of their own consciousness? Do farm animals even know that they are alive? When I cause a farm animal a brief but painful zap by electrocuting its brain, killing it instantly at the butcher, the farm animal consciously feels the pain, but I'm not totally convinced that the momentary pain has very much moral significance. The farm animal does not experience the suffering a human would experience by being imprisoned on a farm, eating one type of food, and being killed upon reaching maturity. The farm animal doesn't have a concept of itself. The farm animal doesn't know that it is alive and that that is something of worth separate from raw matter.

Does a child born in a concentration camps care they never frolic through the grass? Yes I understand I am comparing animals and humans. But, If a animal was born to die and never learned of open fields then isn't that the same as a child in a concentration camp.

I will not give names but some strangled my dog. I stopped them and my dog lived. But, he was crying. A pig is smarter than a dog. There have been stories of pigs that learned how to escape and showed the others trapped how to escape as well.

[EquALLity]

Hi, welcome to the forum!
You should make an intro.

I don't agree with the premise of your first argument.

There is a moral difference between killing an animal and buying meat at the store. The person who killed the animal is the evil person. The one who bought the meat at the store is not an evil person. Yet the one who bought meat at the store is not doing some moral good either. If one refused to buy the meat, one is doing something morally good. I think there is room for neutral territory here. I can basically flesh it out like this:

Killing an animal - evil
Buying meat at a store - neutral (not good or evil)
Refusing to eat carcasses of killed animals - good

The actual killing of animals is wrong. Those who kill animals have moral autonomy and ought to be held responsible for their evil actions.

Going to the store, putting some meat in a shopping cart, and exchanging some paper for the meat, are not evil actions. These actions are no more evil than catching a bus or turning my computer on.

If I knew that the local owner of a restaurant was a shitty person who insults everyone, calls people racial slurs, and underpays his employees, while it would be good to refuse to eat at his restaurant, me eating at his restaurant does not make me a bad person. He is the shitty person. I am just a person eating at a restaurant.

I don't think so. As the consumer, you are demanding with your money that animals be killed, and you are funding their abuse.

An analogy that has been used on this forum is about a hit-man.
If I pay a hit-man to kill someone, am I doing nothing wrong? I'm not physically killing the person, so by your reasoning, I'm morally neutral. However, obviously, I am responsible for the death of the person I payed the hit-man to kill.
What makes this scenario different from the other in terms of culpability logic?

So, if you think that killing an animal when totally unnecessary is evil (which you say is your position), you have to concede that to pay someone to kill an animal is the same.

[_Doc]

Hi, welcome to the forum!
You should make an intro.

I don't agree with the premise of your first argument.

There is a moral difference between killing an animal and buying meat at the store. The person who killed the animal is the evil person. The one who bought the meat at the store is not an evil person. Yet the one who bought meat at the store is not doing some moral good either. If one refused to buy the meat, one is doing something morally good. I think there is room for neutral territory here. I can basically flesh it out like this:

Killing an animal - evil
Buying meat at a store - neutral (not good or evil)
Refusing to eat carcasses of killed animals - good

The actual killing of animals is wrong. Those who kill animals have moral autonomy and ought to be held responsible for their evil actions.

Going to the store, putting some meat in a shopping cart, and exchanging some paper for the meat, are not evil actions. These actions are no more evil than catching a bus or turning my computer on.

If I knew that the local owner of a restaurant was a shitty person who insults everyone, calls people racial slurs, and underpays his employees, while it would be good to refuse to eat at his restaurant, me eating at his restaurant does not make me a bad person. He is the shitty person. I am just a person eating at a restaurant.

I don't think so. As the consumer, you are demanding with your money that animals be killed, and you are funding their abuse.

An analogy that has been used on this forum is about a hit-man.
If I pay a hit-man to kill someone, am I doing nothing wrong? I'm not physically killing the person, so by your reasoning, I'm morally neutral. However, obviously, I am responsible for the death of the person I payed the hit-man to kill.
What makes this scenario different from the other in terms of culpability logic?

So, if you think that killing an animal when totally unnecessary is evil (which you say is your position), you have to concede that to pay someone to kill an animal is the same.

I agree with it when I think evil as not binary. I feel there can be different levels of evil.

I do understand the "hire a hitman" analogy. But, I feel that once someone personal kills they are worse than one that purchased the death. While not knowing the out come. Blissful arrogance.

[EquALLity]

I agree with it when I think evil as not binary. I feel there can be different levels of evil.

I do understand the "hire a hitman" analogy. But, I feel that once someone personal kills they are worse than one that purchased the death. While not knowing the out come. Blissful arrogance.

I think they are equally evil. Why do you disagree?

[_Doc]

I agree with it when I think evil as not binary. I feel there can be different levels of evil.

I do understand the "hire a hitman" analogy. But, I feel that once someone personal kills they are worse than one that purchased the death. While not knowing the out come. Blissful arrogance.

I think they are equally evil. Why do you disagree?

When I think of someone who kills an animal as it screams in pain till death sounds far worse than the one who ignores the pain or doesn't know and pays that killer. This maybe also my personal bias for me not wanting to hate my parents for still eating meat; I am not sure.

[brimstoneSalad]

When I think of someone who kills an animal as it screams in pain till death sounds far worse than the one who ignores the pain or doesn't know and pays that killer. This maybe also my personal bias for me not wanting to hate my parents for still eating meat; I am not sure.

You don't have to hate your parents for eating meat to recognize what they're doing is wrong. You can love a person, but disagree with what that person does.

The person who is actually killing the animal is just trying to make a living: if he didn't do it, then another person would get the job, and his children would go hungry and be without a roof over their heads.

It is the person who has bought the meat who is responsible for the death, not the person who is following that demand and only doing it to make a living.

[EquALLity]

When I think of someone who kills an animal as it screams in pain till death sounds far worse than the one who ignores the pain or doesn't know and pays that killer. This maybe also my personal bias for me not wanting to hate my parents for still eating meat; I am not sure.

How does ignoring suffering make it morally acceptable to inflict?
And they do know that the animals are killed; people just choose to purchase meat anyway. They may not be aware of the cruel practices involved, and I do think that that makes them less culpable regarding that- however, I'm assuming the person who made this topic is aware of the tremendous suffering and abuse involved in the animal agricultural industry.

[_Doc]

When I think of someone who kills an animal as it screams in pain till death sounds far worse than the one who ignores the pain or doesn't know and pays that killer. This maybe also my personal bias for me not wanting to hate my parents for still eating meat; I am not sure.

You don't have to hate your parents for eating meat to recognize what they're doing is wrong. You can love a person, but disagree with what that person does.

The person who is actually killing the animal is just trying to make a living: if he didn't do it, then another person would get the job, and his children would go hungry and be without a roof over their heads.

It is the person who has bought the meat who is responsible for the death, not the person who is following that demand and only doing it to make a living.

Makes sense.

When I think of someone who kills an animal as it screams in pain till death sounds far worse than the one who ignores the pain or doesn't know and pays that killer. This maybe also my personal bias for me not wanting to hate my parents for still eating meat; I am not sure.

How does ignoring suffering make it morally acceptable to inflict?
And they do know that the animals are killed; people just choose to purchase meat anyway. They may not be aware of the cruel practices involved, and I do think that that makes them less culpable regarding that- however, I'm assuming the person who made this topic is aware of the tremendous suffering and abuse involved in the animal agricultural industry.

I didn't mean to say that it was morally acceptable just that it they are "Less Culpable". That is exactly what I was trying to explain. I need to remember that word.

[jasonk]

So Humane Slaughter?
So eat them because you feel bad for them being killed?

Hm, I didn't think of it in those terms exactly. I was supposing since the animal did die, not of my own doing, perhaps I could in a small way make its unfortunate death at least somewhat meaningful. So if, say, such an animal was killed under neutral means, perhaps I hit a deer on a road by accident and that deer was killed, I think it would be a good act to save the meat and eat it, letting the deer's death provide me with life. Perhaps this could be good, though I myself am not entirely persuaded by it

My rule is if that baby can survive without help from doctors then child should not be allowed to be aborted. But, that is just my opinion.

Right that is a perfectly valid and persuasive argument. I suppose I wanted to frame the idea by questioning where is the delineation between a sentient being that has individual rights which trump majority goodness and one which does not have these rights.

Not all creature have the same level of conscience. bacteria and plants do live but do not show any evidence of emotions that animals do.

You should read this Thread https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... =22&t=2003 About fish and their ability or lack of to feel pain/suffering.

Sure, but my argument here was more about substituting humans for natural predators in order to maintain a healthy ecosystem for deer.

Does a child born in a concentration camps care they never frolic through the grass? Yes I understand I am comparing animals and humans. But, If a animal was born to die and never learned of open fields then isn't that the same as a child in a concentration camp.

I will not give names but some strangled my dog. I stopped them and my dog lived. But, he was crying. A pig is smarter than a dog. There have been stories of pigs that learned how to escape and showed the others trapped how to escape as well.

So this is probably the most difficult argument for me to try and justify, and by no means have I proven anything outright absolutely, but I think it is valuable to at least try and talk about it.

So I don't think a concentration camp is exactly the best comparison to a farm because humans were forced to work hard and were underfed on concentration camps, while on farms animals do not work and they are fully fed. They are also cared for by the farmer, creating an environment where they can grow healthfully so that no one who consumes them gets sick or has to deal with in born parasites. I think there is just a different standard between a farm and a concentration camp.

I definitely won't argue the validity and personal persuasiveness of your experiences with animals, but I've had experiences with these animals as well, visiting them in their confinements, (pigs and cattle) and I'm just not persuaded they are undergoing or enduring a horrible fate. I think that, while it would be nice and fun for them to run around fancy free, they don't necessarily need to do this in order for them to be content creatures.