Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    No, I don't.
    You made a strawman argument.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I see no reason for humans to not eat animals, they're tasty. Animals kill each other all the time without remorse, and humans are animals, too. Why should we not take advantage of the planet's resources?

    Obviously, it all has to be in a sustainable way.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    They say they care for animals but they eat them. Surely they are the biggest hypocrites in the history of human civilisation? Discuss.

    I think all vets should be vegan, or at the very least vegetarian, if they truly care about animals. Just think about it if you're a meat eating vet reading this. Why are you taking with one hand and giving with the other? You are being speciesist! That is fundamentally wrong. Might as well just kill them in theatre if you're going to eat meat too.

    watch this video if you really want to know where your meat comes from etc: http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32
    I'd be more inclined to say that people who claim they care for animals but then reject help to actually do something to help comes along because the person offering its meat are the bigger hypocrites.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You made a strawman argument.
    No, I asked you a question.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    It depends on what analogy is being made.

    I don't believe that most animals or some humans are able to enter into a social contract that contains rights, although that doesn't preclude such a contract from having clauses in for the society to maintain rules on how to treat those who can't enter into rights agreements.

    I'm not sure I'd consider myself a pure utilitarian. To be honest I never fully settled on one meta-ethical theory (though always willing to be convinced). Utilitarianism has of course been a strong influence, where as Regan who argues strongly for animal rights doesn't appeal to me.

    I think the reason that most meta ethical theories fall flat on their face eventually is over reaching though. There are an infinite number of thought experiments that one could make which makes it impossible to find one theory to categories every possible event as humans will and do make mistakes. What the moral thing to do in plenty of situations can be difficult to decipher, so I prefer to look at the events I'm facing, and similar events, and work from that basis in a more pragmatic approach.
    Okay then.

    Put it simply: why do you think animals have moral status and why do you therefore think that animal suffering matters? if it is only because they're sentient, i.e. if it's only because they can feel pain and are aware of the fact that they are in pain, then there would be nothing wrong with painlessly killing them. I suppose that's the basis of utilitarian singer-type arguments which many people find convincing.

    If there is more, that is if you think animals are "subjects of a life" (you said you don't like Reagan but you dont have to endorse his specific argments) or something like that, if you think that they are complex creatures capable of a "rich" and "fulfilling" lives then clearly killing them even if done painlessly would be wrong. You'd be depriving them of those rich experiences even if you didn't hurt them. That's ultimately why it might be wrong to terminate the life of a person in a vegetative state. Perhaps they might be capable of experiencing some joy and happiness even though they are clearly not mentally alert and are on par with certain non-human animals.

    Which view would you lean more towards?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)

    Youre genuinely unwilling to have any sort of discussion around the topic other than 'killing things is wrong' aren't you?

    May as well say:

    I am saying this is what you're saying, even though it isn't, and putting words in your mouth, therefore making a strawman argument
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeCapitalist)
    Okay then.

    Put it simply: why do you think animals have moral status and why do you therefore think that animal suffering matters? if it is only because they're sentient, i.e. if it's only because they can feel pain and are aware of the fact that they are in pain, then there would be nothing wrong with painlessly killing them. I suppose that's the basis of utilitarian singer-type arguments which many people find convincing.

    If there is more, that is if you think animals are "subjects of a life" (you said you don't like Reagan but you dont have to endorse his specific argments) or something like that, if you think that they are complex creatures capable of a "rich" and "fulfilling" lives then clearly killing them even if done painlessly would be wrong. You'd be depriving them of those rich experiences even if you didn't hurt them. That's ultimately why it might be wrong to terminate the life of a person in a vegetative state. Perhaps they might be capable of experiencing some joy and happiness even though they are clearly not mentally alert and are on par with certain non-human animals.

    Which view would you lean more towards?
    I *lean* more towards the utliatiarian argument. But you also have several issues with what's said.

    Firstly, there's no way to know how painless a death ever truly is. This is especially more blurry with regards to current killing methods, such as captive bolt gun (mis fires, human error etc.). Last time I looked I think it was a whopping 10% of kills aren't considered 'clean kills'.

    Most animals know they're about to die before they die.

    Indirect harm - farm animals are social creatures, who do miss each other when they're gone.

    So the question of my meta ethical compass on this issue is still very much there, you might have a mild direction, but so far that's all . I would be interested if you had more questions to neaten it up though
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    "I want to make money, I know, I'll be a vet"...I know it's a slight strawman, but as a profession it is not well paid.
    Oh, I always assumed it would be. But that was just an example reason someone might end up being a vet as opposed to any other career.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Oh, I always assumed it would be. But that was just an example reason someone might end up being a vet as opposed to any other career.
    I guess the thread would be better if it's direction was instead:
    "Meat eating vets will always be at a disadvantage in providing the best welfare when compared to ethically vegan vets." Which is still a bit of an over reach, and is still based in a priori arguments, but would make connect the fair and logical argument that you can't claim to care about animal welfare if you go around killing (exception: euthanasia) animals.
    • TSR Support Team
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    PS Reviewer
    Gimme a minute to catch up, will respond to everyone properly in a second

    (Original post by there's too much love)
    "I love animals, that's why I fund them to be born through selective breeding, live in squalid conditions, and killed for the sake of me rather than something in their own interests".

    Sorry, I'm a bit lost.
    Just because they care less about animal welfare (and no, euthanasia is different, that's when it's believed to be in the animals interests, that's the nature of euthanasia) doesn't mean the truth won't be offensive to them. It is the truth.
    I see you've nicely glossed over my point that vets are advocates for animal welfare. I am in agreement that often higher welfare standards should be put into place, but who do you think it is that pushes for these changes? Who do you think it is that advises farmers on how to better manage their livestock.

    Again, (planned) death isn't a welfare issue. Life, including it's final moments, are. Moreover I don't know where the idea that euthanasia is always in the best interests came from. It's done for a variety of reasons. Do you think it's 'in the best interests' of animals killed for being 'dangerous dogs'?

    (Original post by miser)
    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".
    I missed the part where I said that livestock are killed for enjoyment. Last time I checked it was for a source of food, and other things.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Little Tail Chaser)
    I missed the part where I said that livestock are killed for enjoyment. Last time I checked it was for a source of food, and other things.
    People eat meat for enjoyment and out of choice, not for necessity - at least in wealthy places like the UK.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    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.
    Killing animals can very often be inhumane, though. A significant proportion of slaughters in secular abattoirs go wrong, which equates to millions of nonhuman animals dying painful deaths every year. And, the vast majority of countries in the world don't even have the laws that, say, Britain has. In the United States, there are no laws regarding the humane slaughter of chickens, for example.

    (Original post by redferry)
    Look, I get it, its very easy to attach human emotions to animals despite in most cases the scientific evidence just not being there. I love animals, I don't particularly want to kill them, but I don't think it's the moral abomination you make it out to be because I have actually spent thousands of hours observing animals in the wild, and know it to be a lesser 'evil' than that which they would face in their natural habitat.
    You do, unfortunately, present a false dichotomy between domesticated animals kept in farms and animals in the wild. Many vegans and vegetarians advocate phasing out domesticated farm animals, not releasing them into the wild, which is, I agree, largely a world of immense suffering.

    (Original post by AmberEyes)
    I do value the animals I see on farms, but I also accept that they only ever lived for the purpose of farming. That sounds harsh but as long as the animals are kept in good conditions and I consider that they've not suffered overly muching, I'm happy to eat the meat. I also have some standards like only eating free range eggs etc.
    Investigations of free-range egg farms have demonstrated that they're often not much of a step up, in terms of welfare, at all for the animals. In fact, "free-range" is more of a marketing technique than anything, given that it simply requires that there's a small hole in a shed, which will usually be crowded with hens, through which they can escape and go outside for a few hours a day, before being crammed back in.

    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    I see no reason for humans to not eat animals, they're tasty. Animals kill each other all the time without remorse, and humans are animals, too. Why should we not take advantage of the planet's resources?
    "They're tasty" is hardly an argument. Firstly, you commit the tu quoque fallacy: just because nonhuman animals kill each other, doesn't mean that humans should. Secondly, you commit a logically fallacious appeal to nature. Third, your argument implies that humans should be free to go around killing and eating each other, too: after all, animals kill each other all the time without remorse, and humans are animals too.

    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Obviously, it all has to be in a sustainable way.
    The meat industry and sustainability are mutually exclusive concepts, unfortunately. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the meat industry is responsible for almost 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and the evidence is quite clear that the fewer animal products one has in their diet, the more sustainable it is. This has led the United Nations Environment Program to advocate a shift to a vegan diet: "Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth and increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products."

    Switching from factory farmed to "organic", "free-range" meat is hardly going to help either. Studies (see here and here) have found that organic and free-range chicken is actually worse for the environment than factory farmed chicken, which is bad itself in terms of environmental damage and the fact that it helps to breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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:
    poor argument. we've got the intellectual capacity to make a choice of what we eat. We are meant to be all smart all knowing and can decide what we eat. We don't need meat to live. Your argument that a cat eats meat is not relevant at all! Are you a cat who is a vet? No. :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    You cannot be ethical when it comes to meat choices. Your meat is animal parts. Animals that were living, breathing. They wanted to be alive but you deprived them of that right because you wanted to eat them. Animals feel pain, feel fear, just like other animals. How is eating any animal ethical? Vets are just hypocrites. They think eating a chicken is different to eating a cat or dog. In my eyes they're both animals who feel fear and feel pain. It's just unfortunate that in our society they are seen as having some kind of higher 'social status' over other animals like chickens that we raise for food.

    There is no such thing as ethical meat. Eating meat of any form is unethical.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    I don't think you get it. You make a distinction between a human and animal and are very hierarchical. You completely miss the point. Humans and animal be they chickens or dogs are all equals. We have no right to determine which animal lives or dies. It's like the holocaust on an industrial scale. What happened to the jews during the 2nd world war is happening to the animals every second of every day and they are all suffering and feeling pain, but you are stuck in your bubble only concerned about your fellow humans. If I can't make you see that then you are a lost cause. No compassion in your soul.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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: :lol: :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.

    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 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

    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 . Wouldn't really wanna treat a tortoise the same way you'd treat a cat. Because they are different.
    That is the most bizarre statement I have ever heard. How can you promote animal welfare if you are contributing to an industry that is killing animals for food/medical research? How is that contributing towards their welfare? So you are the biggest hypocrites ever in human civilisation! Just think about what you typed. You promote animal welfare, but you promote their deaths as well by eating them. That makes no sense. I encourage you to watch that Earthlings documentary on my original post.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    (Original post by 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?
    I'd love to try it on you against your will, just like you say happens to non-human animals. You up for it? Probably not, nor are non-human animals. What makes us think we can determine what to murder and not to murder when we wouldn't wan't it to happen to ourselves? Isn't there a saying that says don't do unto others that you wouldn't want done to yourself? I think it's quite poignant and relevant here.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    I don't think you get it. You make a distinction between a human and animal and are very hierarchical. You completely miss the point. Humans and animal be they chickens or dogs are all equals. We have no right to determine which animal lives or dies. It's like the holocaust on an industrial scale. What happened to the jews during the 2nd world war is happening to the animals every second of every day and they are all suffering and feeling pain, but you are stuck in your bubble only concerned about your fellow humans. If I can't make you see that then you are a lost cause. No compassion in your soul.
    "Bubbly concerns", I never said I agreed with the way animals are killed nor do I condone what happens to them because I do wish it to be changed, the point is it is irrefutable to change the basics of human morality without affecting people's beliefs or morality in a way too.
    Morality is dictated by the ability to empathise and yes, I AM VEGETARIAN which is why I don't wish to see this happen, however, I am able to see people's views either way and seeing it only one way or in monochrome is completely illogical because there is always a middle.

    The ability of empathise with only one side is very wrong because what happens when beliefs conflict and you try to force your beliefs on others, is that morally acceptable?
    Animals are subjected to horrific abuse including castration without anesthetic, thrown away in rubbish bins alive and other horrific acts committed by people, I know this because this is what caused me to become vegetarian in the first place, however, lecturing people will only remove their ability to empathise because it will feel like, to them you are forcing your beliefs on them and not having it come to them in their own time and on their own accord.

    So, don't take things as black and white as they are, they aren't that simple and the majority of people are in a grey area where their morality pulls them one way but their inability to see what is happening is preventing them from going all the way.

    Hence my initial phrase, "Life sucks" because you can't force change, it must happen gradually over time and not forced because you will it so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeCapitalist)
    Is your view that raising animals for food is akin to keeping humans in slavery?
    Yes this is true. Animal slavery and human slavery are no different. Until mankind learns to treat animals as equals there will always be war and destruction on this planet. Meat eaters are savages.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=redferry;59315553][QUOTE=there's too much love;59315391]
    (Original post by redferry)

    You are unwilling to engage in real discussion therefore throw around 'strw man argument' and false dichotomy instead. Plus a load of insults, which is frankly just rude. I have been very reasonable with you, undeservedly so.

    Look, I get it, its very easy to attach human emotions to animals despite in most cases the scientific evidence just not being there. I love animals, I don't particularly want to kill them, but I don't think it's the moral abomination you make it out to be because I have actually spent thousands of hours observing animals in the wild, and know it to be a lesser 'evil' than that which they would face in their natural habitat. You are unwilling to argue because your morals are pureley emotional, you feel you are right because you have chosen to anthropomorphise animals in a way that is not backed up in the field of zoology. For me, I stick with science and evidence to guide my morals,, because I am a scientist, you are perfe tly entitled to base yours on emotion. But that doesn't mean you get to be rude about it.
    You need scientific evidence animals feel pain and killing animals is wrong?

    Watch this end to end with no breaks - 1hr. http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

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

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