Should you feel guilty for eating meat?

[Sansha]

Have you considered the rabbits, gophers and birds that have their nests and bodies torn to shreds by vegetarian-bound soy and corn crop farming?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97836&page=1#.UBkiN7T9PUs

I have. But I have never said that a vegetarian diet is perfect, nor have any vegetarians I know. Simply that it is better. Even if animals die to ensure that I get my food it is not hard to argue that fewer do.

That article also points out that meat production requieres the repeted slaughter og animals, and that a vast amount of the worlds grain production goes into the meat industry. Both of which are important points.

Valid points indeed. I'm glad you know your facts. I meet too many vegetarians who don't, or simply don't listen.

I grew up on a free-range beef and pork farm. Small time operation, but the cows lived on grass, and the pigs rooted up whatever grubs and such they could find, with the occasional sack of grain feed for the winter and proceeding breeding season.
It all came out delicious and rich, and slaughters went from clueless to dead in a second, without a moment's interim of panic or pain.

So I've seen animals live full lives doing what they do naturally, eating, drinking, farting and screwing, before being simply snuffed out like delicious juicy candles, usually around the time they'd have died in the wild. Meat can come from innocent sources.

Side note; pigs are fucking delightful creatures, they really are. I adore them as much in their living state as I do in their dead.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

Now time to make my position clear; as long as the animal eaten does not match the intelligence or near intelligence of a human (or endangered/vital part of an eco system), I see no wrong with eating it. It was going to be eaten by something and is just part of an eco-system and has zero chance of ever achieving something great with its live nor will it ever experience leisure or cares if it does/knows it exists and it would be a waste of time, money and effort to give animals leisure. So while I don't try to make you(you for this being used to refer to vegetarians in general) eat meat, I would appreciate if you(same as previous you) don't try to make others stop eating meat. Though if either group starts the debate feel free to take part and not hold back.

Tought experiment: If you really wanted to eat human flesh, and you were presented with a brain dead person that no one would mourne if died, would it be premissable to eat him/her?

I don't see how intelligence has moral relevance. If you fall off your bike and hurt your self I will feel sorry for you. But not because you are intelligent. I will feel sorry for you because I know that the pain you feel hurts you, and you would rather not be in pain. I.e. I know that you suffer from it. I know pain is bad for you because I have been in pain myself. As such it would be morally solopsistic of me not to have sympaty for you.

And I'm sorry, but a pig that is breed for food would not have been eaten by something anyway. It has brought in to existence with the sole purpose of being food. It would not have existed or suffered had it not been for humans.

And I am not making you eat vegetarian. But there is a big but. I think that there actually is something that is right and wrong (as do you I am sure) and I think that I am doing the right thing here. As such I obviously want people to do the same as me. In the same way that if you believe piracy is wrong you want everyone to stop doing it.

 

[Odbarc]

Eating is survival. Why guilt? No one is hunting and preying off domesticated pet.

 

[Sansha]

Now time to make my position clear; as long as the animal eaten does not match the intelligence or near intelligence of a human (or endangered/vital part of an eco system), I see no wrong with eating it. It was going to be eaten by something and is just part of an eco-system and has zero chance of ever achieving something great with its live nor will it ever experience leisure or cares if it does/knows it exists and it would be a waste of time, money and effort to give animals leisure. So while I don't try to make you(you for this being used to refer to vegetarians in general) eat meat, I would appreciate if you(same as previous you) don't try to make others stop eating meat. Though if either group starts the debate feel free to take part and not hold back.

Tought experiment: If you really wanted to eat human flesh, and you were presented with a brain dead person that no one would mourne if died, would it be premissable to eat him/her?

I think human flesh is taboo because it's our own species. There's something... just off about it.

I wouldn't eat a human steak right off the bat, or pick the prime cuts of a brain-dead person to be fried up for me, but if presented with the opportunity to try a little bit... I'd go for it.
I'm not against it, but it's something I'd have to... ease into, y'know?

 

[emeraldrafael]

...

But lately I have been questioning if I should feel guilty for eating meat, seafood (anything that has a life). ...

technically plants are living too, so youd have to go to like, super vegan tofu levels if youre bothered by eating something that was alive.

But more OT, while I respect those that dont eat meat for whatever reason (personal, spiritual, customary), you should never feel guilty for it if its for survival. Humans have developed for thousands of years and one of those developments is the canine tooth. and to me, i dont see a reason why you should waste what evolution has given you to make you an apex predator. Animals that are omnivorous are usually one of if not the top animal in their chain and have the higher chnce of surviving because they can eat from both groups and not just one.

Now, if youre getting the food through some kinda unnecessarily cruel method, then you are a bad person and you should most definitely feel bad. Or if youre over hunting or just killing for the sake of saying "well, it was the bettter trophy, the meat is just a reason to justify it".

EDIT:

...

That poor cow/.../sheep/etc. died to feed you and you're denying it its one and only reason for existing in this world.

You monster.

Cows, Sheep, and chickens have other uses. cows give milk and while unhealthy compared to other milks, its probably the easiest to get in mass quantity. Theres quite the difference between Cattle and cows. The traditional cow most people think of is a dairy cow, while most cattle you kill to eat are much more capable of defending themselves.

Sheep give wool, and I know that if you live on a low income farm wool like that can be a godsend for sewing material.

And chickens, well, they give you eggs (which yes, I get that youre still killinga chicken for it, but eggs are a good staple in backing and other such foods, and I cant think of a good substitute).

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

I grew up on a free-range beef and pork farm. Small time operation, but the cows lived on grass, and the pigs rooted up whatever grubs and such they could find, with the occasional sack of grain feed for the winter and proceeding breeding season.
It all came out delicious and rich, and slaughters went from clueless to dead in a second, without a moment's interim of panic or pain.

So I've seen animals live full lives doing what they do naturally, eating, drinking, farting and screwing, before being simply snuffed out like delicious juicy candles, usually around the time they'd have died in the wild. Meat can come from innocent sources.

Side note; pigs are fucking delightful creatures, they really are. I adore them as much in their living state as I do in their dead.

My parents got some pigs each spring that was killed for food each autumn when I was a kid. so I have seen many of the same things. And I think that it is by far the best way to procure meat. I have big problems find much moral fault with it.

And they really are!

 

[Darren716]

I don't feel guilty in the sligtest because being eaten is the animals only goal in life besides reproducing. It's not like some cow or chicken or whatever was going to make some great contribution to society if they weren't turned into a meal.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

I think human flesh is taboo because it's our own species. There's something... just off about it.

I wouldn't eat a human steak right off the bat, or pick the prime cuts of a brain-dead person to be fried up for me, but if presented with the opportunity to try a little bit... I'd go for it.
I'm not against it, but it's something I'd have to... ease into, y'know?

It certianly is taboo. But if the justification for eating meat is that animals are not intelligent then should it be? Granted that we are all rational of course..

 

[MHR]

technically plants are living too, so youd have to go to like, super vegan tofu levels if youre bothered by eating something that was alive.

Plants have no nervous system. You could burn a plant alive and shred it slowly, and it is literally not capable of giving a sh*t.

In terms of survival, anyone in a developed country can easily live as a vegetarian. It's only a concern if you're in some dump of a country where the goat you have kicking around in your backyard is your only food source for the week. In that case, of course you cook up some goat curry.

In terms of surviving in the urban environment, meat is detrimental. It takes a ton more natural resources to produce meat. Vegetarian foods are much more efficient to produce and are easier to store. The mission to mars is going to have a *vegan* diet because you can actually store that stuff over years. Meat is a luxury food item in a developed environment.

 

[Yopaz]

Humans are not able to properly digest vegetables because there's too much energy tied up in cellulose which no mammal can digest, some animals can digest it because they have fungi and bacteria that breaks it down.

Biologically speaking we shouldn't feel bad for eating meat. It's evolution and physiology. Ethically speaking we do breed animals for meat and there's a lot of mistreatment of animals both while breeding and while butchering. I live in a country where animal cruelty can be enough to shut down a farm and warrant frequent controls after it is allowed to continue so I don't feel bad for the animals I eat.

If we are to start talking about balance as a reason for being a vegetarian then that's a pile of bullshit. Balance is why other animals eat each other. Nature works that way, this is one of the driving forces of evolution. The war between species to pick out the species best fit to each environment.

We don't need meat in our every day life, but meat contains a lot more energy and proteins than the same weight of most vegetables. Vegetarians are doing an admirable thing by standing for what they believe in, but I don't know how much good it does. Humans are omnivores so I will eat fish, meat and vegetables and consider my health rather than the ethics.

 

[nuba km]

Now time to make my position clear; as long as the animal eaten does not match the intelligence or near intelligence of a human (or endangered/vital part of an eco system), I see no wrong with eating it. It was going to be eaten by something and is just part of an eco-system and has zero chance of ever achieving something great with its live nor will it ever experience leisure or cares if it does/knows it exists and it would be a waste of time, money and effort to give animals leisure. So while I don't try to make you(you for this being used to refer to vegetarians in general) eat meat, I would appreciate if you(same as previous you) don't try to make others stop eating meat. Though if either group starts the debate feel free to take part and not hold back.

Tought experiment: If you really wanted to eat human flesh, and you were presented with a brain dead person that no one would mourne if died, would it be premissable to eat him/her?

I don't see how intelligence has moral relevance. If you fall off your bike and hurt your self I will feel sorry for you. But not because you are intelligent. I will feel sorry for you because I know that the pain you feel hurts you, and you would rather not be in pain. I.e. I know that you suffer from it. I know pain is bad for you because I have been in pain myself. As such it would be morally solopsistic of me not to have sympaty for you.

And I'm sorry, but a pig that is breed for food would not have been eaten by something anyway. It has brought in to existence with the sole purpose of being food. It would not have existed or suffered had it not been for humans.

And I am not making you eat vegetarian. But there is a big but. I think that there actually is something that is right and wrong (as do you I am sure) and I think that I am doing the right thing here. As such I obviously want people to do the same as me. In the same way that if you believe piracy is wrong you want everyone to stop doing it.

to answer the though experiment: yes, didn't even have to think about it. Though would I be fine with the meat from brain dead people being sold at the store, no, because there are people who have murdered for much, much lesser things then a taste for human flesh.

Sympathy has nothing to do with what's right or wrong, you have sympathy for someone who goes to the dentist and has to go through a rather painful process for something, but is it wrong for them to go to the dentist no. Is it something the needed to do, no, they could have been completely fine loosing a tooth or having a cavity.

What does have to do with write and wrong has to do with cause and effect, if I shot a man to stop him form blowing up a city I would be a hero as I have stopped someone from ending a much large numbers of lives which have a much greater chance of doing things that allow people to live a better life ensuring a increased likely hood of the survival of our species. If I shot a man who was about to invent the cure to cancer the opposite would be true. If I shot the man who was about to blow up a city filled with zombies that are nearly about to spread to other cities but also contained the only person who could cure the zombie virus, I would be in a moral grey area as there are way to many possible outcomes form this scenario for any sort of accurate guess.

The only possibility that the life of an animal could have any important impact on the quality and on the length of human(or any species) existence are so unlikely and long term that it doesn't really matter.

 

[BanZeus]

If you have the energy to wonder whether it's morally justifiable to eat meat then you can probably afford to eat something else until you start craving flesh once again.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Really though, a vast VAST majority of animals we use specifically for the purpose of consuming wouldn't exist otherwise.

This makes it better? Many would argue this makes it worse. If they weren't ever bred into existing this way, that would be the best outcome. It's the same reason people spay and neuter their pets to prevent suffering - the only difference being accidental and institutional.

Well, not necessarily better.

My point still stands though; the animals that exist now already exist and they exist for the purpose of consumption. What would you like to do with said animals rather than eat them?

And how would it be "the best outcome"? That's more than a little subjective, don't you think?

 

[MHR]

What does have to do with write and wrong has to do with cause and effect,

I'm just going to go ahead and point out that with this logic, slavery was the best thing ever. A slave class is such an efficient way to build a society and infrastructure, and what could possibly be better than entire lives created and worked for the sole purpose of furthering society? There's no money or greed to corrupt it either, it's all productive benefit all the time.

 

[MHR]

Really though, a vast VAST majority of animals we use specifically for the purpose of consuming wouldn't exist otherwise.

This makes it better? Many would argue this makes it worse. If they weren't ever bred into existing this way, that would be the best outcome. It's the same reason people spay and neuter their pets to prevent suffering - the only difference being accidental and institutional.

Well, not necessarily better.

My point still stands though; the animals that exist now already exist and they exist for the purpose of consumption. What would you like to do with said animals rather than eat them?

And how would it be "the best outcome"? That's more than a little subjective, don't you think?

Of course eat them. If they can't live or function anywhere else, make them as useful as possible. The problem is when you produce more of these creatures that aren't capable of surviving on their own and who's only purpose is suffering for luxury products.

Yes, "the best outcome" is subjective, but I base it upon the least undue suffering. If these creatures cannot contribute positively to an ecosystem and will suffer needlessly as a result of their creation, why create more of them?

 

[Feylynn]

I heard that plants have their own way of screaming when killed.
Flora has as much life as Fauna and if sentience is what you mean than there is debate whether or not many animals have very diverse thought pattern.
Even then animals eat each other, to have an issue with that is to have an issue with nature and the circle of life.

The real debate isn't guilt for eating meat, but the morality of a species so hopelessly dominant raising lesser beings for slaughter. That is going to continue whether you eat meat or not.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

Sympathy has nothing to do with what's right or wrong, you have sympathy for someone who goes to the dentist and has to go through a rather painful process for something, but is it wrong for them to go to the dentist no. Is it something the needed to do, no, they could have been completely fine loosing a tooth or having a cavity.

What does have to do with write and wrong has to do with cause and effect, if I shot a man to stop him form blowing up a city I would be a hero as I have stopped someone from ending a much large numbers of lives which have a much greater chance of doing things that allow people to live a better life ensuring a increased likely hood of the survival of our species. If I shot a man who was about to invent the cure to cancer the opposite would be true. If I shot the man who was about to blow up a city filled with zombies that are nearly about to spread to other cities but also contained the only person who could cure the zombie virus, I would be in a moral grey area as there are way to many possible outcomes form this scenario for any sort of accurate guess.

The only possibility that the life of an animal could have any important impact on the quality and on the length of human(or any species) existence are so unlikely and long term that it doesn't really matter.

This is getting really interesting. I like it.

I agree that sympathy does not tell us what is right and wrong. That was not my point, and I can see that I have expressed myself imprecisly, so I am sorry about that.
My point was that sympathy can tell us something about what it is about other people that make them moral subjects. That is, worthy of taking into consideration when we make desisions. The point I was trying to make was that sympathy shows us that the attribute human beings have that make us consider them in this way is their ability to suffer. However I think this conclusion can be reached by using rationality and universalisation of our own preferences in stead. So:

- (1) I don't like being hit in the face. It hurts.
- (2) Other people are alot like me (they have the same nervesystems and most people are not mascochistic 24/7)
- (3) If I punch Paul in the face it would hurt him in the same way.
- (Conclusion) I should not hit Paul in the face.

The more we know about the world around us the easier it is to know what to do and not to do. Now we know that animals probably suffer. Therefore we should not do things to them that we know is bad. So, if you acknowledge your own preferences it's hard to not acknowledge that others (including animals) has preferences as well. I think this is what produces the best effects that you are talking about, and I also think it can be used as a guideline to find which effects are the best. That is not always such an easy desision to make.

(This line of thought takes for granted that people want to do the right thing. I will not get into the debate concerning whether they actually do here. It is far too complex en far too off topic).

 

[nuba km]

What does have to do with write and wrong has to do with cause and effect,

I'm just going to go ahead and point out that with this logic, slavery was the best thing ever. A slave class is such an efficient way to build a society and infrastructure, and what could possibly be better than entire lives created and worked for the sole purpose of furthering society? There's no money or greed to corrupt it either, it's all productive benefit all the time.

actually no, that would be short term thinking, also society is quality of living, slavery is the lowest quality of live and if people could work for nothing and just try and help each other communism would be great but no, people have to be motivated to work and positive encouragement works better then negative. Also those people in the slave class could have the kinda mind that means putting them into a different career would be much more beneficial. Also salve labour would destroy the need to hire people for primary class labour making it impossible for lower class people getting jobs and having a chance at a good live, and as history shows a lot of great people come from the lower class.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Of course eat them. If they can't live or function anywhere else, make them as useful as possible. The problem is when you produce more of these creatures that aren't capable of surviving on their own and who's only purpose is suffering for luxury products.

Yes, "the best outcome" is subjective, but I base it upon the least undue suffering. If these creatures cannot contribute positively to an ecosystem and will suffer needlessly as a result of their creation, why create more of them?

I'd argue that farms, the non-factory ones (and even some of them too thanks to regulation changes and increased public scrutiny) aren't places where the animals suffer. Don't get me wrong. The industry surrounding livestock is terrible. I'm arguing for the overall concept. Also, as omnivores, meat is a staple of our diets.

And they're contributing positively to an ecosystem. They're being eaten by us. Humanity effectively makes up one massive homogenous ecosystem, so they're serving a purpose and aren't dying needlessly.

I get the feeling we have diametrically opposed outlooks on the subject of ethics relating to the consumption of animal products...so...agree to disagree?

 

[kouriichi]

Animals eat animals. Animals eat plants.

Some animals cannot eat plants. Some animals cannot eat animals.

In the end, humans are animals. Decide what type of animal you are, because as much as you wish to deny it, were all beasts inside. The ideas of "Right" and "Wrong" tend to be misconstrued for someone's own personal gain. There is nothing "Wrong" about eating meat, and as such, you should not feel guilty about it. If we didnt eat cows, some bigger, strong, more predatory creature would come along and eat it for us. If we didnt eat chickens, some smaller, probably just as dangerous creature would come along and eat it for us. In the end, the circle continues no matter whos doing the eating. Life, death, life, death, life, death, poop, to sum it up really.

If you enjoy burgers, theres nothing wrong with it. If you like chicken on your salad (why does that sound so sexual? o__o), by all means have at it. Eating meats is part of human nature. We've been hunting since we were evolved/created/conceived/dropped here by aliens. But we've also been gathering since then, as there are times you dont want to chase down a pack of velocirapters to feed your family (shoosh you, i like to have my own beliefs too). We owe a lot of our intelligence to our early years figuring out advanced flanking maneuvers to take down larger game such as the mighty T-rex! Its arguably why we created our languages, to make things like hunting easier and the pecking order more defined when it came to who eats first.

Do i believe there is anything wrong with a 2lb bacon burger? No, i dont, so long as you bring me one too. So laugh, grow fat, and enjoy life, because you only live it once (unless it turns out reincarnation is real, which then you get to enjoy multiple life times of delicious bacon products).