Are meat eating vets the biggest hypocrites in the history of mankind?

They say they care for animals but they eat them. Surely they are the biggest hypocrites in the history of human civilisation? Discuss.

watch this video if you really want to know where your meat comes from etc: http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32

(edited 1 year ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Scienceisgood

I wonder what would happen if eating human meat was made legal?
How many people would want to eat/try it?

Obviously people who have died of natural causes or committed suicide..

Seriously though, I don't think many vets work in the livestock area and mostly work on domestic pets (dogs, cats, birds, rabbits etc...). So, do you think it is hypocritical for a farmer to kill something he has raised since it was born to be eaten by someone who has never seen it or even had any connection to it for less than 1 hour's worth of work?

Life sucks, deal with it...

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 2

Little Popcorns

Not really the animals they save eat meat...

Or should they turn around and say to the pet cat/dog sorry mate it'd be wrong for me to save you when you've eaten dead animals... You deserve to join them :rolleyes:

Reply 3

redferry

No personally I think that award has to go to meat eating anti-halal campaigners/keyboard warriors.

I don't think eating meat as a vet is especially hypocritical as long as they are ethical in their meat choices. Bearing in mind most livestock vets are given meat by farmers where they know the animals are treated well.

Conservationists who eat meat are far more hypocritical given how bad it is for the planet.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 4

Scienceisgood

Sorry, was mostly a little hungover from last night...

Basically, humans can eat meat, that much is irrefutable.
Secondly, while vets are meant to save animals, they also have to develop a tough exterior because of the sheer number of animals they can't save. As a Biomedical student, I have had to tell parents that they're kids can't be saved if they have cancer, internal bleeding etc... so it is a case of, as I said before. Life sucks, deal with it, just not in such a nice way.

So, yes, while it is MILDLY hypocritical, to develop a kind of relationship with a patient is dangerous to both a Doctor and a Vet's profession because it can affect said opinions and what is best for the patient.

Reply 5

Little Tail Chaser

The title of this made me laugh really hard :lol:

'Biggest hypocrites in the history of civilisation' is a bit of an overstatement isn't it? :lol:

Anyway, no, I don't think that they are. A vet's main role is to promote animal welfare, not to prevent animal death. Death isn't the worst thing that can happen to an animal. You could say the same thing about euthanasia, is it hypocritical for vets to treat animals, only to possibly kill them later in life? Vets see a lot of their patients die just by virtue of the fact that generally animals don't live as long as humans do. That isn't an issue, all things must eventually die. Its the brief stage before that, life, which vets are concerned with. :wink:

I'm pretty sure that vets know where meat comes from, y'know, given that they spend 5 or 6 years in vet school and have to attend placements at farms and abattoirs :wink:

If, based on what they see, they choose to eat meat then that's their prerogative. If their decision is to go veggie/vegan then that's equally valid. Either way it's an educated opinion and moreover it's somewhat insulting to imply that they care any less about animal welfare because of this. People just like to feel better about their life choices by attempting to make other people feel bad about their own. 'Loving animals' isn't a competition, and the people who try to make it into one often don't do as much for animals as they think they do. Is it also hypocritical for vets to not donate all of their money and free time to charity? And for them to use products tested on animals? I'm sure they're aware of the issues surrounding what they do and make their choices accordingly. Becoming a vet is a huge commitment that requires buckets of dedication, however that doesn't mean that they're morally obligated to be perfect people 24/7, they are human after all :wink:

Also, as for vets being speciesist, like, treating living things differently simply by virtue of them belonging to different species? Yeah that's bit of a requisite of veterinary medicine :wink:

. Wouldn't really wanna treat a tortoise the same way you'd treat a cat. Because they are different.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 6

TheBNPkid

Not really, I don't really see what's hypocritical about that at all. An animal rights activist maybe, but not a vet.

Reply 7

miser

It doesn't follow that vets who eat meat are hypocritical, unless we're assuming that vets hold other characteristics, e.g., that they're a vet because they want to help animals (and not, for instance, to make money).

Although to be honest, I think vets are less hypocritical than the average person, because at least they're doing something that mitigates the net harm they're contributing. Most people just kind of don't think about it too closely, and think animals shouldn't be harmed for a person's personal enjoyment, unless it's enjoyment in their mouth.

Reply 8

miser

Original post by Little Tail Chaser

No way, this is a total cop out. Are you saying that a doctor who paid others to farm and kill humans for his or her own enjoyment wouldn't be hypocritical?

On the one hand the doctor supposedly values human life and helps to save it, but on the other he or she financially supports and gains pleasure out of the injury and destruction of humans elsewhere? Either the doctor values the health and happiness of humans or s/he doesn't.

The doctor doesn't get off the hook just because s/he "sees a lot of his or her patients die" anyway, or by pointing out "all things must eventually die".

Reply 9

viddy9

There's a subtle difference between hypocrisy and inconsistency, although inconsistency can imply hypocrisy. As for the biggest hypocrites in the history of civilisation, there are probably many candidates, but we can all probably agree that humans are the biggest hypocrites in the history of civilisation.

Original post by Little Tail Chaser

Also, as for vets being speciesist, like, treating living things differently simply by virtue of them belonging to different species? Yeah that's bit of a requisite of veterinary medicine :wink:

. Wouldn't really wanna treat a tortoise the same way you'd treat a cat. Because they are different.

No, speciesism is the process of discounting the interests of sentient beings simply because they're members of other species.

Reply 10

vis break

Original post by Scienceisgood

Would that mean we could eat miscarriages?

Reply 11

redferry

You don't spend much time in/around nature do you?

Believe me a quick shot to the heads the nicest thing most animals (and many people) can expect when they die. Once you've seen a hyena eating a zebra alive, or vulture ripping up a live pregnant gazelle struggling to give birth, a swift dispatch with a shotgun/bolt seems like a heavenly way for an animal to die.

Happy life and a swift death - who could hope for anything more than that?

Reply 12

redferry

You can ensure you eat meat from animals that do have aa good life though, by buying from local producers or limiting yourself to wild shot. At the end of the day most animals in the wild live an awful life full of fear and pain - not battery farmed bad, but parasite infested, disease riddled heavily predated on bad. People who think otherwise are just deluded. You think natures some beautiful place where all the animals run around happily and die in their sleep, whereas in reality those animals scrape by every day and spent their whole lives terrified...

What's taking their own life got to do with anything? Just because they don't take their own life doesn't mean that killing them swiftly isn't a better way for them to die than natural causes.

But it is OK to fly your relative to Switzerland to die instead of letting them suffer a long drawn out death from cancer? Or is that barbaric too??

Funny thing is I don't need to justify it, I don't eat meat because it produces high emissions. I just know the argument that killing animals is inhumane is frankly ridiculous.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 13

LeCapitalist

Is your view that raising animals for food is akin to keeping humans in slavery?

Reply 14

redferry

[QUOTE="love;59315241" there's="there's" too="too" much="much"]

Original post by redferry

Is it in the animals interests to die? No. Or is forcibly taking a sentient beings life against it's interests ethical now?

There's a reason that very few philosophers argue in favour of meat eating (in fact, currently I don't know of one that does, the only ones that have seem to be dead) and that's because morally speaking it's very hard (many would say impossible) to defend.

Oh, when you're eating meat you're actually eating animals that have been euthanasia?
That's funny, the vast majority of the deaths of any farm are not euthanasia.

And that's why you've failed to put up a valid defense of it so far? Keep trying.

You're clearly not interested in having a reasonable discussion, you would rather resort to insults and randomly generated retorts that shut down any chance of conversation. You clearly run on emotion not logic and anthropomorphise animals to a great extent.

Reply 15

LeCapitalist

Alright I just want to be clear on the analogy (and I will come back to this point if needed)

Do you favour animal rights or are you a pure utilitarian? (I remember reading DeGrazia's paper in which he defended a "third way" so not suggesting those are the only approaches to animal welfare)

(edited 8 years ago)

Vets aren't all there to care for animals although they often do. Their role is specifically to maintain welfare standards with regard to farm animals - should we argue that anyone who eats meat cannot have good standards of animal welfare? This would apply to any pet owner as much as a vet. In addition, if an animal was destined solely to be eaten and not bred/as a pet then I doubt most of them would reach theatre as the cost of operating would outweigh the price of their meat...