Why Do You Eat Animals?

[brimstoneSalad]

I would begin by saying that 'reasons' is, in my perception, the wrong word to use. A reason is a convincing idea to change position. A justification is a convincing idea to maintain position, so I would like to present my justification for eating meat, instead. But this is knitpicking.

What you presented is not your justification for eating meat now. You have none.

It's a hypothetical justification for eating meat in the future for when those problems are solved (if they ever are).

The distant possibility of meat being produced in an ethical way some day does not excuse eating meat now.

I submit this suggestion: Don't become a vegan, but eat a vegan diet for now until animal agriculture actually meets the standards you believe allow it to be ethical. Stop eating that meat which you know to be unethical, unless and until the situation changes.

I derive my notions of morality from a personal adaptation of utilitarianism.

I'd love to talk about that, but it's not even the issue now.

Even if you accept all of your own reasoning, you have to admit that your claimed justification is false- it does not apply in any way to what you are actually doing.

That's like "justifying" rape with the premise that the girl could have consented if you'd bought her some drinks and taken her for dinner and a movie. Could have, would have, it doesn't matter- it only matters what actually happened.

I'm glad to help you compare wild conditions and captive ones, and talk about the comparative merits, and examine other negative and positive aspects of animal agriculture, from environmental matters, efficiency, health, and human culinary preferences.

But I'm afraid all of that will fall on deaf ears if you're dead set on "justifying" actions based on the assumption that similar actions could possibly be justified in a different situation. Your "justification" is unrelated to your actual actions. You're engaging in a logical fallacy here.

[thebestofenergy]

My points are pretty much the same as brimstoneSalad and Humane Hominid.
The situation you described is not the current one. And it's unlikely that it'll happen in the future: you have to satisfy the demand of billions of people, and letting billions of animals roam and live a nice and long life would be astronomically expensive (also, there would still be unpleasent things in their lives, such as stealing their babies for milk). It would require much more space, and the environmental problems would still be there.
Also, wild life is not unpleasent at all. You have to consider that animals evolved for millions of years, living and adapting in the wild life (besides, the current farmed animals would most likely die out).

[Volenta]

All of your points depend on your assumption that living in captivity is intrinsically bad, whereas, from a utilitarian point of view, captivity can be perfectly fine, as long as the creature is happy. Could you please demonstrate that captivity is intrinsically bad?

Well, I argued about the current situation, not a hypothetical one, but that has been pointed out by brimstoneSalad and thebestofenergy. The problem is that the hypothetical one is never gonna work in practice. And I don't think that captivity is intrinsically bad, otherwise I wouldn't recommend caring for a homeless dog.

[Coeus Amphiaraus]

I addressed this Hobbesian assumption on my (now idle) blog a while back, and rather than repeat myself, I'll just post a link to it here. http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/2012/03/ ... iving.html

In summary: the Hobbesian view of nature as red in tooth and claw is pseudo-science. Or, at best, a small part of the story. From the POV of individual wild animals, predation is quite rare, and statistically speaking, most wild animals live their entire lives without becoming prey.

The notion that captivity is inherently better for animals than wildness is self-serving and irrational, based on outdated conceptions of nature rooted in religion, not evidence and reason.

The only source you gave about the likelihood of animals being hunted by other animals was a quote from Dawkins who disagreed with you. Furthermore, none of the benefits (sex, playing and eating food) are limited to the wild, whereas the negative aspects are.

The distant possibility of meat being produced in an ethical way some day does not excuse eating meat now.

I submit this suggestion: Don't become a vegan, but eat a vegan diet for now until animal agriculture actually meets the standards you believe allow it to be ethical. Stop eating that meat which you know to be unethical, unless and until the situation changes.

I should've been more clear on this matter. The problem with this suggestion is the following two-parted point: 1) There are farms currently doing their best to treat animals well, having them roam free, etc. etc. 2) Vegans are irrelevant to the market of meat. They do not exert demand, so they can't help any progress being made. By not being vegan but supporting farms as mentioned in 1), I think one can do much more for the situation than by being vegan.

And it's unlikely that it'll happen in the future: you have to satisfy the demand of billions of people, and letting billions of animals roam and live a nice and long life would be astronomically expensive (also, there would still be unpleasent things in their lives, such as stealing their babies for milk). It would require much more space, and the environmental problems would still be there.

There's little doubt to my mind that we would have to cut back on meat consumption to make it possible, but I doubt going vegan is the preferable option (which can be in part understood from my response to brimstoneSalad above.

Also, wild life is not unpleasent at all. You have to consider that animals evolved for millions of years, living and adapting in the wild life (besides, the current farmed animals would most likely die out).

Evolution allows for survival, not for pleasure.

[Viktorius_the_Third]

I kind of don't like how most here don't care about captivity... o_o

i think captivity is ALWAYS worse than a natural life! (there are a few exceptions, hurt or ill... but released shortly after!)
if a chicken gets hunt down by a fox... fine! thats nature! to claim that it wouldl ike captivity more is stupid!
IF you have a cat! now thats a "good" example of "captivity"
If you open the door and she comes back! Than its her wil because she likes you and you give her food. Also she can go whereever she want!
But as soon as the "coming back" part is not fulfilled CAPTIVITY IS BAD!

[brimstoneSalad]

The only source you gave about the likelihood of animals being hunted by other animals was a quote from Dawkins who disagreed with you. Furthermore, none of the benefits (sex, playing and eating food) are limited to the wild, whereas the negative aspects are.

That wasn't a source, that was an example of the tilted world view (to focus preferentially on the negative in nature).
He did explain a bit about thermodynamics, but more could be done if needed. There are numbers on these things- which are accessible with a couple clicks on Google.

I should've been more clear on this matter. The problem with this suggestion is the following two-parted point: 1) There are farms currently doing their best to treat animals well, having them roam free, etc. etc. 2) Vegans are irrelevant to the market of meat. They do not exert demand, so they can't help any progress being made. By not being vegan but supporting farms as mentioned in 1), I think one can do much more for the situation than by being vegan.

Do you eat meat exclusively from these sources?
If you don't, that's not an argument.

If you do, then we can discuss that, as well as the point Humane Hominid made (I would be willing to do the math for you, and show sources, if you're not interested in using Google to find them).

However, I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with somebody who is determined to be unreasonable from the get-go.

Is every bite of animal product you eat from a small, local, free-range grass fed farm, without finishing?
If not, then even by your own argument, you don't have a leg to stand on.

If so, then we can proceed with a rational discussion.

I would ask for evidence, though- as extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence- in the form of which farms you are ordering from, and ideally a receipt to prove the fact, because almost everybody I've ever heard claim that so far was lying (a good way to find out is to ask them which farms they order from- if they don't know, they're liars: I'd need a receipt from you, though, because being on the internet, you might find a name to answer with).

You're probably lying too. You probably go for the convenient factory farmed burger on the corner. If not, though, I'm glad to be proven wrong.

There's little doubt to my mind that we would have to cut back on meat consumption to make it possible, but I doubt going vegan is the preferable option

If you even eat exclusively from the kind of farm I mentioned, have you cut back on meat consumption to a proven sustainable level from those kind of farms?
If not, you aren't living a justifiable example for anybody, and you're making the same fallacy organic advocates make when they criticize people for buying conventional produce.

If so, please indicate how much you've cut back, and show some sources demonstrating that such a level of output is sustainable with that model with the current population.

Evolution allows for survival, not for pleasure.

We can discuss that, among other things, once we determine that you aren't a raging hypocrite dead set on being irrational no matter what.
Do you actually do as you preach?
If not, I find it unlikely that you will be reasoned with.

I don't make a habit of criticizing people who eat meat rarely, and who when they do, buy exclusively from sources they know, and which they can validate maintain conditions they approve of.
Is it ideal? No. But if somebody is doing much better than most people, and being substantially more consistent and conscientious than most, I save my breath and focus my criticism elsewhere.

If you aren't a raging hypocrite, then my hat's off to you; you're the first I've met in a long time.

[brimstoneSalad]

I kind of don't like how most here don't care about captivity... o_o

It's not that we don't care about captivity; in most cases it is a problem. But captivity is only harmful in so far as it is psychologically damaging- from the anxiety it creates compared to normal ranging behavior, and the boredom it creates.

Captivity is only wrong as far as it is harmful.

Take the example of a desert fish, which lives naturally in small puddles and comes out of hibernation when it rains. Their range is incredibly small in nature, and they couldn't reasonably be expected to develop any kind of anxiety from an enclosure larger than their natural habitat.

There are kinds of animals who only live in one bush, or under one rock, their entire lives.

There are also kinds of animals who are accustomed to roaming over miles and miles.

The harm captivity does is relative to the natural tendencies and psychological condition of the animal.

It's possible to keep animals in a captive area that accommodates their natural roaming territory, and thereby do no harm to the animal (from captivity itself)- the area required, however, is often impractically large.

[thebestofenergy]

And it's unlikely that it'll happen in the future: you have to satisfy the demand of billions of people, and letting billions of animals roam and live a nice and long life would be astronomically expensive (also, there would still be unpleasent things in their lives, such as stealing their babies for milk). It would require much more space, and the environmental problems would still be there.

There's little doubt to my mind that we would have to cut back on meat consumption to make it possible, but I doubt going vegan is the preferable option (which can be in part understood from my response to brimstoneSalad above.

Also, wild life is not unpleasent at all. You have to consider that animals evolved for millions of years, living and adapting in the wild life (besides, the current farmed animals would most likely die out).

Evolution allows for survival, not for pleasure.

True, evolution allows for survival, but it's also true that evolving in a certain environment over millions of years makes it 'your home'; if you adapt to it, there's nothing uncomfortable or miserable. Like Humane Hominid said in his post, yes, thousands of animals are currently being eaten in the wild, while millions are having a pleasent time. You don't have to look at the negative side only. But why would this matter with farmed animals? They wouldn't be able to be released in the wild.

1) There are farms currently doing their best to treat animals well, having them roam free, etc. etc.

They also make them have babies when the owner wants and steal them, they have restrictions where they can go and most important they kill them prematurely. They are not free, and they definitely don't give the consent to kill them. I wouldn't like to be born with the day of my execution already planned.

2) Vegans are irrelevant to the market of meat. They do not exert demand, so they can't help any progress being made.

By not comsuming animal products you don't support the meat and dairy industry that you would otherwise support, while you support vegan products. Is that not a difference? Besides, buying from farms that treat animals 'well' you don't support the cut from meat comsumption of your theory.

[Humane Hominid]

Evolution allows for survival, not for pleasure.

That is really one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone write about evolution. Seriously dumb.

I'm gonna be away from the computer for most of the day today, so I will get back to the substantitve matters of predation statistics and ecology later, if someone doesn't beat me to it.

But seriously, this statement betrays such an ignorance of evolutionary theory, it's not even wrong. Pleasure and survival are not opposing outcomes. Pleasure promotes survival by adapting organisms to enjoy (and thus seek out) behaviors and resources that enhance their fitness. Animals evolved pleasure hormones for a reason, you know.

[brimstoneSalad]

Evolution allows for survival, not for pleasure.

That is really one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone write about evolution. Seriously dumb.

It's right up there with "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
It... might even be worse.

But seriously, this statement betrays such an ignorance of evolutionary theory, it's not even wrong.

Careful about using that phrase without linking to explanation, only people in the skeptic community usually know what that means. He may not understand why that's a bad thing, and he could come away from all of this thinking he's right somehow.

For the layman's reference:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly "correct" conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable.
The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

The phrase not even wrong describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.

The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[1] Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." [2] This is also often quoted as "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong," or "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" in Pauli's native German. Peierls remarks that quite a few apocryphal stories of this kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched by him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau, "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not."[2]

The phrase is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science, and is considered derogatory.[3]

I'm gonna be away from the computer for most of the day today, so I will get back to the substantitve matters of predation statistics and ecology later, if someone doesn't beat me to it.

I'll leave it to you. You're a patienter than I to humor the irrational.

I'm going to wait and see if he puts up some evidence to support the claim that his behavior is even in-line with his own expressed standards.