Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is it wrong to be concerned with how an animal is slaughtered? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    To me, wanting to eat meat and being concerned about how the animal is slaughtered are not mutually exclusive.

    If we are going to kill something, human or animal, then I see nothing wrong with trying to do so in the most pain-free and humane way possible, whether: animals for meat, culling animal populations, executing humans for crimes, killing humans on the battlefield, etc.

    Nobody would bat an eyelid at a soldier protesting against a military weapon being introduced that causes pain, so why is there an issue if people protest against slaughtering an animal in a way that is not the most pain-free?

    And I don't just refer to religious methods. I mean all methods which are not aimed at being the most humane and pain-free.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    It's not? If it were I doubt there would be the (inadequate) laws we have, and there would probably not be people who abstain from meat eating.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You are correct in that they are not mutually exclusive and whilst some people are concerned with the (now dead) life of an animal, many simply do not care.

    However, it's all about priorities.

    For example, to a Jew or a Muslim, the manner in which an animal is slaughtered is paramount but they also have ethics in place to ensure that animal must be treated well throughout it's life.

    For a company, saving costs (to make more profit) is the priority so it makes sense to engage in battery farming and wholesale slaughter.

    For others, like yourself, you are concerned with the slaughter being pain-free and humane so you choose the option that sits right with you.


    You are entitled to air your concerns and ask people to consider slaughter of animals to be pain free and humane but you must appreciate that other people have different priorities to you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's Blbecause either way the animal is still being slaughtered.If you are so concerned about the way the animal should die maybe it's better not to eat it at all so it doesn't have to die.There is no "nice" or "humane" way to kill something that doesn't want to die.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)

    You are entitled to air your concerns and ask people to consider slaughter of animals to be pain free and humane but you must appreciate that other people have different priorities to you.
    True, but you can disagree that their priorities matter or valid. Its the foundation of our moral and legal systems.

    (Original post by Michaaelaaa)
    I think it's Blbecause either way the animal is still being slaughtered.If you are so concerned about the way the animal should die maybe it's better not to eat it at all so it doesn't have to die.There is no "nice" or "humane" way to kill something that doesn't want to die.
    While I agree that there is no humane or nice way to kill something, it's still perfectly valid to want it to be killed in the best possible way. You can be concerned with animal welfare enough to want them to be comfortable, but not enough to stop eating or using them,
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The main issue is that rapid mass slaughter of animals is never going to be particularly humane. Just watch hidden camera footage of what goes on. Possibly stunning, before having your throat cut, is slightly better but it's all a bit academic. And certainly doesn't warrant the ignorant religious ranting that you come across. The only moral stance if you're going to get on a high horse is vegetarianism, if not veganism.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I hear people screaming about Halal and Kosher meat all the time but find such people to be phoney in most cases because a) Animals raised for slaughter are treated very badly for their whole lives and these same people do not bat an eyelid, after all of the suffering it has been through have it's throat slit probably does not compare and b) Most animals that are slaughtered religiously have been stunned beforehand.

    I have given up on almost all meats and only rarely eat certain types of fish because of the cruelty of the meat industry. There is nothing wrong with criticising religious slaughter so long as you're not being hypocritical.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    You are correct in that they are not mutually exclusive and whilst some people are concerned with the (now dead) life of an animal, many simply do not care.

    However, it's all about priorities.

    For example, to a Jew or a Muslim, the manner in which an animal is slaughtered is paramount but they also have ethics in place to ensure that animal must be treated well throughout it's life.

    For a company, saving costs (to make more profit) is the priority so it makes sense to engage in battery farming and wholesale slaughter.

    For others, like yourself, you are concerned with the slaughter being pain-free and humane so you choose the option that sits right with you.

    You are entitled to air your concerns and ask people to consider slaughter of animals to be pain free and humane but you must appreciate that other people have different priorities to you.
    Indeed, but my opinion is that promoting the most humane slaughter to minimise suffering holds greater moral weight than promoting some pain to satisfy ideological religious beliefs, for example. Morality is largely subjective, so there is no objective hierarchy here, but that's my opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarek)
    The main issue is that rapid mass slaughter of animals is never going to be particularly humane. Just watch hidden camera footage of what goes on. Possibly stunning, before having your throat cut, is slightly better but it's all a bit academic. And certainly doesn't warrant the ignorant religious ranting that you come across. The only moral stance if you're going to get on a high horse is vegetarianism, if not veganism.
    I don't see why not, or why that can't be something we aim for.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarek)
    The main issue is that rapid mass slaughter of animals is never going to be particularly humane. Just watch hidden camera footage of what goes on. Possibly stunning, before having your throat cut, is slightly better but it's all a bit academic. And certainly doesn't warrant the ignorant religious ranting that you come across. The only moral stance if you're going to get on a high horse is vegetarianism, if not veganism.
    I am in full agreement with you !!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    I don't see why not, or why that can't be something we aim for.
    What would you aim for beyond stunning and a slit throat tbh?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    To me, wanting to eat meat and being concerned about how the animal is slaughtered are not mutually exclusive.
    You talk about doing so in the most pain-free and humane way possible. Yet, even in secular slaughterhouses, the stunning process goes wrong in a significant proportion of cases, with academic estimates ranging from 12.5% to 40% of stuns going wrong, leading to millions upon millions of animals dying in intense pain every year.

    So, the question is, how can you tell whether the animal you're eating has been slaughtered humanely or not? The answer is that you can't. And, random investigations of secular slaughterhouses demonstrate this too. Furthermore, many pigs are gassed these days, yet they're clearly in a great deal of distress for the at least 20 seconds they spend gasping for their breath and trying to escape. (See here and here, for instance) These are animals, recall, who are demonstrably more intelligent than human toddlers. CCTV in slaughterhouses would be a step forward, but the meat industry is opposing this for obvious reasons: they don't want us to see what goes on.

    Another problem is that in the confinement and transportation of the animals, they suffer a lot too. Yet, many people who complain about slaughter alone do not acknowledge this. In essence, if people really did want to minimise the amount of suffering they inflict on animals, they would reduce their consumption of meat and other animal products and eliminate this consumption eventually. There's no logical reason not to. This is the suffering of other sentient beings we're talking about here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    You talk about doing so in the most pain-free and humane way possible. Yet, even in secular slaughterhouses, the stunning process goes wrong in a significant proportion of cases, with academic estimates ranging from 12.5% to 40% of stuns going wrong, leading to millions upon millions of animals dying in intense pain every year.

    So, the question is, how can you tell whether the animal you're eating has been slaughtered humanely or not? The answer is that you can't. And, random investigations of secular slaughterhouses demonstrate this too. Furthermore, many pigs are gassed these days, yet they're clearly in a great deal of distress for the at least 20 seconds they spend gasping for their breath and trying to escape. (See here and here, for instance) These are animals, recall, who are demonstrably more intelligent than human toddlers. CCTV in slaughterhouses would be a step forward, but the meat industry is opposing this for obvious reasons: they don't want us to see what goes on.

    Another problem is that in the confinement and transportation of the animals, they suffer a lot too. Yet, many people who complain about slaughter alone do not acknowledge this. In essence, if people really did want to minimise the amount of suffering they inflict on animals, they would reduce their consumption of meat and other animal products and eliminate this consumption eventually. There's no logical reason not to. This is the suffering of other sentient beings we're talking about here.
    The circumstances you describe should be improved to the most pain-free and humane point possible.

    Yes, it would be ideal if we could eliminate meat consumption altogether, but while that's not the case (probably because we haven't developed an adequate synthetic alternative), there is nothing wrong with consuming meat but still seeking the most humane means of slaughter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    So, the question is, how can you tell whether the animal you're eating has been slaughtered humanely or not? The answer is that you can't.
    And this is why I stopped eating meat three years ago.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    To me, wanting to eat meat and being concerned about how the animal is slaughtered are not mutually exclusive.

    If we are going to kill something, human or animal, then I see nothing wrong with trying to do so in the most pain-free and humane way possible, whether: animals for meat, culling animal populations, executing humans for crimes, killing humans on the battlefield, etc.
    I don't get this. You're killing an animal i.e. depriving it of life either way so you can eat it. There isn't a humane way to "kill" something. The most humane thing to do would be to let it live.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    To me, wanting to eat meat and being concerned about how the animal is slaughtered are not mutually exclusive.

    If we are going to kill something, human or animal, then I see nothing wrong with trying to do so in the most pain-free and humane way possible, whether: animals for meat, culling animal populations, executing humans for crimes, killing humans on the battlefield, etc.

    Nobody would bat an eyelid at a soldier protesting against a military weapon being introduced that causes pain, so why is there an issue if people protest against slaughtering an animal in a way that is not the most pain-free?

    And I don't just refer to religious methods. I mean all methods which are not aimed at being the most humane and pain-free.
    My Nan had a farm when I grew up and you learn respect for your food.

    Animals should be treated well in all reasonable ways and that includes their slaughter.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RivalPlayer)
    I don't get this. You're killing an animal i.e. depriving it of life either way so you can eat it. There isn't a humane way to "kill" something. The most humane thing to do would be to let it live.
    99 times out of a hundred the animal wouldn't even exist without farmed meat


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    The circumstances you describe should be improved to the most pain-free and humane point possible.
    I agree, but again, for me it's not good enough. The most humane point possible is to not slaughter animals for their food.

    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Yes, it would be ideal if we could eliminate meat consumption altogether, but while that's not the case (probably because we haven't developed an adequate synthetic alternative), there is nothing wrong with consuming meat but still seeking the most humane means of slaughter.
    Society as a whole has not eliminated meat consumption, but plenty of individuals have. Many people have not eliminated meat consumption because they don't want to have to change their lifestyles - their care does not extend to the point where they want to do so. I agree that lab-grown meat is a massive step forward, and some estimates suggest that it may be commercially available by 2020.

    I'm not going to say it's wrong to consume meat but still seek the most humane means of slaughter; it's obviously less wrong than simply not caring at all. But, that's the point: it's a continuum, and I can't fathom how people don't want to be as far to the "least wrong" part of that continuum as possible.

    That said, even if people don't want to eliminate their meat consumption, they can still reduce their consumption of meat, and the fact that many people are doing that already is a good step forward.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I stopped eating meat after I began studying whether the halal meat controversy was based on anti-muslim bigotry or genuine concern for animals (it's a combination of the two, RSPCA and other animal rights groups have legitimate concerns, far right bigots jumped at the opportunity to be more bigoted). I quickly found that whilst halal and kosher slaughter (in their pure, non-stunned form) are far more painful for the animal, and should be banned, the lives of these animals is far from humane anyway. Slaughterhouses are not as well monitored as they should be but given the amount of meat we consume it would probably be impossible to monitor them all as much as is necessary.

    I'm all for the lab-grown flesh route, same product but with none of the suffering or death.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    I don't see why not, or why that can't be something we aim for.
    Go and visit an abattoir. Actually learn how it is done.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.