Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Meat eaters, defend your position Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be honest, I like the taste.

    But equally, I care about the animal as well, which is why I want the meat I eat to be ethically produced, and why, when it becomes available, I will almost certainly switch to in-vitro meat.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Reporter Team
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    In my opinion, most people's justifications are terrible. I'll try to run through some of the most common ones.

    Other animals eat meat, therefore it's okay if we do too.
    Yes, they do, but I missed the conference where we apparently decided that matters of ethics can decided by observing the behaviour of wild animals. Other animals kill humans and members of their own species, but nobody would ever offer this as a defence of murder. Civilised society is marked by its rejection of instinct and wild behaviour. What animals do is completely irrelevant.

    True. I tried to form a counter-argument to this and it was flawed.

    It's nutritious and good for us.
    That depends. Generally Western cultures eat far too much meat than is simply healthy and nutritious. Even if this defence did fly, it'd only justify a much smaller amount of meat than is typically consumed by the average Western meat eater. But even then, it's by no means necessary for health and nutrition for the vast majority of people.

    I couldn't find anything to support this. Are you absolutely certain? I only ask because amongst the people I know, the main staple is (processed) carbs and meat is simply an extra. Much of the time, the 'meat' is covered with layers of batter and not much pure meat is eaten.

    We evolved to eat / have always eaten meat.
    This is an argument from tradition. What has happened in the past does not validate those actions as in any way ethical. It's irrelevant what proto-humans did, or what pressures pushed us into eating meat. Eating meat may well have been necessary for our species in the past, so we might have evolved to chew and digest it, but the times have changed. We have an abundance of food - we don't need to hunt and kill things now, and pointing out we needed to in the past is irrelevant.

    I agree with you. I don't believe this is a valid justificaiton.


    Eating meat is natural.
    This is an instance of the naturalistic fallacy. That something is natural does not imply it is ethical. There are many things that are natural for humans which we collectively agree to be unethical: rape, murder, violence, etc. We cannot adequately justify a crime by saying it was a natural instinct or that nature was responsible for my desires and impulses. We expect people to use self-control and forgo harmful indulgences, whether they can be argued to be natural or not.

    Again, agreed.

    It tastes nice.
    This is the worst one in my opinion. Not only is it lazy, but it's effectively a statement to the effect that you don't care whom or what you injure so long as it feels good enough. If pleasure were an acceptable justification for overruling animal rights, we would not be so against dog fighting, bestiality and other condemned practices. This kind of reasoning would never factor into other crimes such as the murdering of a human.

    Even hypothetically, if there existed a human who was a million times as delicious as bacon, we absolutely would not allow someone to simply eat them and justify it by saying, "they tasted good enough for me to kill them." Pleasure in committing what would otherwise be a crime does in no way reduce the criminal nature of it. This on its own does not at all justify killing animals unless you are prepared to accept it as a defence for other crimes - anything else is either contradictory or hypocritical.

    I acknowledge that other animals eat meat, that it's to an extent nutritious and healthy for us to eat, that there may have been evolutionary pressures for our species to eat meat, that eating meat may be a natural want of our species, and that it can taste very nice indeed, but these are all lacking as moral justifications. They do not challenge the idea that eating meat is a crime, nor even suggest that it is a necessary crime. They give no ethical redemption at all - they just help us to feel good about our willing complicity in what is in fact a very injurious and immoral industry.

    The taste argument seems to be the overwhelming one. I admit that it's hypocritical when compared to the majorities view on things like dog fighting and bestiality. I assume people feel the latter two are more cruel.
    Thanks for the detailed reply to my thread.

    I've made little comments in bold
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Reporter Team
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    ....
    I think most people don't particularly care about animal rights.

    They entertain the notion if it's convenient but when it's not, it's disregarded. It's the reason why a person would be enraged by a video of cat cruelty but then say "meh" after watching a video of battery farming.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    People call me a hypocrite because I love animals but eat meat.
    I don't see it that way.

    I keep a cat, a dog and a snake. I don't eat cat or dog or snake. My animals eat turkey, lamb, fish, chicken, beef, mice, rats and many other farmed meats.

    The way I see it it's part of the food chain. We're not eating endangered animals (And I do hate those that do), pigs, cows and sheep are everywhere and will be for a long time now.

    I agree with the people that are against mistreatment of farm animals during their life, I think they should be treated well. But when the axe falls, you won't see me running in to stop them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe that the subject is so black and white but it is more on a personal basis. Eating or not eating meat is a personal choice and isn't right or wrong. I disagree with the type of vegetarian which doesn't eat meat because the animals are treated badly as wont make a difference to their welfare (people will always want to eat meat.) Buying products with higher standards of welfare for the animals will inform the producers that people want the chance.

    At the same time I am disgusted by meat eaters who see animals just as a food sources and have the "we're just going to kill them anyway" view. Living things should be treated with respect and cared for, not kept inside for 18 months with very little space to move and on hard cold floors before being slaughtered.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "if you really want to save the animals, then stop eating all their food." Will ferrel
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewk)
    Quorn is horrible. Eggs are nice. I could live on eggs for my protein, but meat..... I can't give up meat..... It's so.... meaty.... :drool:
    Do you really can't give up meat, even when it is just a day?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The amount of naturalistic fallacies in this thread is making my eyes bleed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The "ethical" reasons for not eating meat are seriously flawed.

    Your still killing and eating a living organism and denying them life. Whether you eat meat or not.

    Everything else is just peoples personal opinion on "rights" etc, which in nature do not exist. I'm not for cruelty towards animals but at the same time you can't deny we are the "only" animal with ethical consideration.

    The only way we could actual get round that ethical dilemma is if we started eating minerals from rocks.... and as far as I'm aware that's not possible and we would lack many organic materials needed for our survival.

    A friend of mine once joke something along the lines that Veggie's are just lazy, they like to eat lifeforms that are defenseless and totally incapable of fighting back but then have the cheek to claim that they have the moral highground over those who eat meat.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Reporter Team
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    The "ethical" reasons for not eating meat are seriously flawed.

    Your still killing and eating a living organism and denying them life. Whether you eat meat or not.

    Everything else is just peoples personal opinion on "rights" etc, which in nature do not exist. I'm not for cruelty towards animals but at the same time you can't deny we are the "only" animal with ethical consideration.

    The only way we could actual get round that ethical dilemma is if we started eating minerals from rocks.... and as far as I'm aware that's not possible and we would lack many organic materials needed for our survival.

    A friend of mine once joke something along the lines that Veggie's are just lazy, they like to eat lifeforms that are defenseless and totally incapable of fighting back but then have the cheek to claim that they have the moral highground over those who eat meat.
    As far as I'm aware plants feel no pain. We don't have plant rights but we do have animal rights. The idea is that it's hypocritical for ppl to eat meat and then be horrified when someone kills their cat for fun.

    You save a lot of plants by being vegetarian. GCSE science will you that a lot of energy is lost between producer and primary consumer trophic levels. Thus, when you eat meat, you not only consume that but you've indirectly caused a lot of plants to be eaten.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The mass meat-farming industry is also terrible for the environment. I mean, really, really terrible. So the ethical concerns aren't just about animal welfare.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ex-vegetarian here

    I eat what I want, when I want, instead of blindly doing what someone tells me I should or shouldn't do because they feel morally superior to meat-eaters. I go by my own diet. It's unfortunate it took me a while to see from this perspective.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OMG TOOTHBRUSH)
    I was a vegan until I read this comment. By far the best reason I've ever heard to eat meat. Repped.
    Exactly! Plant murderers got stumped on that one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keromedic)
    As far as I'm aware plants feel no pain. We don't have plant rights but we do have animal rights. The idea is that it's hypocritical for ppl to eat meat and then be horrified when someone kills their cat for fun.

    You save a lot of plants by being vegetarian. GCSE science will you that a lot of energy is lost between producer and primary consumer trophic levels. Thus, when you eat meat, you not only consume that but you've indirectly caused a lot of plants to be eaten.
    All pain is electrical currents, plants themselves do have similar systems, albeit not anything we can understand on a conscious level. Plants actually can move and try and move away from fire etc.

    They technically have no less right to life than animals other than rights made up by humans

    Also animal rights are not in any sense natural, it's just something people do to make ourselves superior to animals themselves.

    People get all shocked due to personal attachment and socialization. It's technically no more hypocritical for someone getting shocked when their child is killed but much less bothered when they hear about someone else's dying. You also see some nutters who get equally upset when tree's are cut down
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Having not read all of the posts on the thread. A simple defense of eating meat is simply being selective in the meat you eat. All the arguments about the treatment of animals and the killing of animals is easily avoided by only eating animals whom were not factory farm raised, and eating animals which died of natural causes. There was no contribution to a factory farming culture, there was no contribution to the torture or pain of animals in such a case. The meat would be completely ethical. This is coming from a mostly non-meat eater btw if that matters to anyone.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    Well, it tastes good.
    My mum makes my food for me so I have to have whatever she makes
    My mum wouldn't let me turn vegetarian, then she'll have to make separate food for me and also religious reasons.

    I've had times though, when I think about the animals and feel bad and then don't eat meat for a while but then I start eating it again :lol:
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Reporter Team
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    All pain is electrical currents, plants themselves do have similar systems, albeit not anything we can understand on a conscious level. Plants actually can move and try and move away from fire etc.

    They technically have no less right to life than animals other than rights made up by humans

    Also animal rights are not in any sense natural, it's just something people do to make ourselves superior to animals themselves.

    People get all shocked due to personal attachment and socialization. It's technically no more hypocritical for someone getting shocked when their child is killed but much less bothered when they hear about someone else's dying.
    Moving away from a stimulus does not mean that plants feel pain. I'm not convinced.

    Don't you understand that your logic is flawed? If you're saying that plants and animals have an equal right to life then eating plants is then preferable as less life is lost in the process.

    And natural=good now?

    Well, that's understandable. Getting more upset over the loss of your own child's life doesn't mean that you think it's worth more than someone else's child. It's just that you feel more hurt due to the attachment you've made.

    I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say by the below
    You also see some nutters who get equally upset when tree's are cut down
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    It tastes nice.
    This is the worst one in my opinion. Not only is it lazy, but it's effectively a statement to the effect that you don't care whom or what you injure so long as it feels good enough. If pleasure were an acceptable justification for overruling animal rights, we would not be so against dog fighting, bestiality and other condemned practices. This kind of reasoning would never factor into other crimes such as the murdering of a human.
    This is because morality is subjective - and poor animal treatment, or consumption of animals for food, for many people is not rated as very immoral compared to the equivalent for humans.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Taste and more dense for protein.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DAS4793)
    No it's not, many studies have been carried out on this.
    Many studies have showed that vegetarians are often malnourished


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.