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

This is disgusting, can the meat industry ever be humane? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nope not in our lifetime. Even if we got it sorted in the West it would still be like that in the rest of the world.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    There is no such thing as humane killing, rape or the likes. And there sadly probably never will be.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Disgusting! All those little lives just thrown away! So disgusting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arsenal96)
    I'm surprised only the Mail reported on this. I couldn't even watch the video.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...like-dead.html

    I admittedly eat meat but make sure it is free range and sourced specifically. I stay away from the likes of KFC and subway so I try my best. But I rarely have it nowadays anyway.

    But is there any chance of the meat industry reforming? Surely there is ways to process all this humanely? Are there any laws in the process of being introduced?
    pretentious
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Morality is a calculus which dictates behaviour based on what is best for the class of beings deemed morally important. It is silly to decide first what the content of morality is, and then the beings to which morality applies. Unless, of course, you define the class of beings as 'those capable of experiencing suffering', but that needs justifying - it's very far from being able to be taken as obvious.
    But, if morality is to do with anything, it's surely to do with the quality of experience of conscious creatures, and how actions affect it. For example, if the universe were filled only with rocks, there would be no reason to care how anything turned out, because there are no conscious perspectives to whom it could matter in any way. It's only because creatures exist (e.g. us), and we can experience good and bad states of conscious experience, that things do, in that sense, matter. Morality must therefore be concerned with those conscious perspectives and their vulnerability to positive and negative states of experience, i.e., suffering, satisfaction, and so on. Any other conception of morality I think fails to account for why it matters or is relevant to anyone or anything, since it detaches itself from the only things that it can matter or be relevant to - conscious creatures and their nature of experience.

    There are many creatures that have a stake in their conscious experience of course, not just humans. Vertebrates, and possibly invertebrates and other animals are also vulnerable to different states of conscious experience (positive and negative) in the same way - although likely not to the same degree - as we are. Therefore, any moral behaviour should also, it seems to me, take their perspectives into account.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arsenal96)
    Are there any laws in the process of being introduced?
    I bet you don't even know the current laws.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Disgusting! All those little lives just thrown away! So disgusting.
    Actually, they would never have been born if there was no intention to kill them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LadyEcliptic)

    I don't understand why the chicks can't be raised for meat though? I'm not sure why they don't do that instead of just crushing them to death.
    They're different breeds of chicken. Broilers (the ones we eat) have been bred to be very large and to grow very, very quickly. Layers have not (unsurprisingly, they have been bred to lay as many eggs as possible), so they're no good in terms of meat farming.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    But, if morality is to do with anything, it's surely to do with the quality of experience of conscious creatures, and how actions affect it. For example, if the universe were filled only with rocks, there would be no reason to care how anything turned out, because there are no conscious perspectives to whom it could matter in any way. It's only because creatures exist (e.g. us), and we can experience good and bad states of conscious experience, that things do, in that sense, matter. Morality must therefore be concerned with those conscious perspectives and their vulnerability to positive and negative states of experience, i.e., suffering, satisfaction, and so on. Any other conception of morality I think fails to account for why it matters or is relevant to anyone or anything, since it detaches itself from the only things that it can matter or be relevant to - conscious creatures and their nature of experience.

    There are many creatures that have a stake in their conscious experience of course, not just humans. Vertebrates, and possibly invertebrates and other animals are also vulnerable to different states of conscious experience (positive and negative) in the same way - although likely not to the same degree - as we are. Therefore, any moral behaviour should also, it seems to me, take their perspectives into account.
    I agree that morality relates only to experience (but not necessarily conscious experience - I don't, however, think that's relevant here); however, I don't think that necessarily means that being capable of experience is the qualifier for moral consideration. Rather, I think morality relating to experience is the consequence of the scope of morality, rather than its determiner. The scope of morality comes from accepting as a premise that morality exists, discovering those to whom one believes morality must necessarily apply if it is to exist (for instance, I think it fairly clear that were someone to punch a small child in the face, it would be legitimate to call that action immoral), and finding the class of beings from which there is no relevant distinction from that first intuitive class - and I believe that can only be humans, since the same intuition does not exist in my book for animals. If one feels sorry for the pain of an animal, it tends to be either because we feel sorry for the implications for humans (e.g. "that was David's dog; David will be upset that his dog was hurt" has much the same meaning as "that was David's television; David will be upset that his television was broken", whereas there is a clear intuitive distinction from "that was David's wife; David will be upset that his wife was hurt"), or because we empathise with the animal on a human level (if a particular animal was incapable of experiencing pain, we would still 'empathise' to the same extent if someone kicked it) - not because the animal is in any way comparable to humans in a relevant sense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    It's more humane than what happens to chickens living in the wild.
    What do you even mean? It's not humane, it's natural.

    What isn't humane is caging living beings where they are unable to move and get feed with their own **** (LITERALLY!) or make chicken produce so many eggs that their bones break...

    I would prefer to live 30 days in the wild where I could do anything I wanted than being caged for 60 days eating **** with corn and suffering 24/7.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Gotta reform this crap. Ban religious slaughter and stop the killing of live chicklets!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I'm interested to know why you don't see animals as morally important. If moral behaviour is behaviour that attempts to avoid causing unnecessary suffering, then participation in the meat industry is in contradiction with it. So, if moral behaviour is in fact not dependant on the intention to avoid causing unnecessary suffering, then what is it and why bother with it?
    I agree that morally vegetarianism is much more consistent than being an omnivore, but I am a hypocrite who loves his meat.


    In future meat will be grown artificially and animals will be kept for human pleasure and to preserve biodiversity but treated with respect also.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoorBastward)
    Gotta reform this crap. Ban religious slaughter and stop the killing of live chicklets!
    How do you suppose we should kill them when they are not alive?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Haha, i mean just making sure they aren't conscious rather.
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    How do you suppose we should kill them when they are not alive?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macy1998)
    Not really.

    No offense but I was expecting to see something bloody or gruesome. I just saw was chicks in cages. Those were pretty mild pictures for "inhumane" actions.
    So putting animals in a cage is ok.

    Maybe we should put you in a cage and see how you feel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    Actually, they would never have been born if there was no intention to kill them.
    Are you saying its ok to kill them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you support this you a cold blooded killer
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoorBastward)
    Haha, i mean just making sure they aren't conscious rather.
    They are normally gassed now as it is more efficient.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is why I am a vegetarian (sp check by Diddy)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoisonedMeat)
    This is why I am a veterinarian
    Sense has not been made.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.