Talk:Ethics of eating meat/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

removing text

I'd like for someone to review the "Necessity" section. In particular, the reference to an Inuit dependence on meat has no citation, and should be removed unless someone wants to find one for it. Also, in the "Harming Plants Hurts Animals" section, the sentence about the alfalfa harvest seems counter-productive since alfalfa is used almost exclusively to feed animals. Also, a citation for the section would be appropriate, so readers would know which Steven Davis work is being referenced.Indeterminate 07:23 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a ref to Steven Davis. --Hq3473 14:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following para: " Most 'ethical' vegetarians observe that the same reasons exist against killing sentient animals to eat as against killing humans to eat - the animal does not want to die and is given no choice; the family and friends of that animal will suffer as a result; the animal has expectations of future enjoyment which are denied; the animal enjoys living, and the animal experiences varying levels of fear and pain in the process of being killed. Most would say that killing an animal, like killing a human, could only be justified in extreme circumstances and that the creation of a meal for its enjoyable taste, convenience or perceived nutritional value is not sufficient cause."

Such personal essays have little place in wikipedia. Furthermore, the arguments that an "animal does not want to die" is equally applicable for plant life. I've never heard any sane person saying that trees want to die. They possess mechanisms to defend themselves or their produce so they'd equally be interested in living. The very meaning of life is exactly that. LIFE. not death.

"the family and friends of that animal will suffer as a result" I think the animals don't maintain an addressbook of family and friends or that they even remember anything beyond a few days at best in mammals. The only animals might be the elephant that can remember such things similar to humans for months and years at end. It's more of an exception than the rule in the animal kingdom. Others forget their mates in a matter of days or weeks at best. This statement is nothing but a wishy washy thinking without credible source.

the remaining statements too need some neutral references. Idleguy 09:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoa.... no way. That list comes from Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation and is widely regarded as a good list of reasons why you wouldn't kill people or animals. Most vegetarians do believe that animals are sentient creatures who deserve at least some consideration. If they do not want to die then they have right over their own life and should not be killed. This is the same justification as we use against killing people who do not want to be killed. Part of the ethics of freedom or 'rights'. That is to say, the animals has the right to judge its own life. Now, trees may well have that too depending on whether you judge them as sentient or not - you haven't really disproven the point. In any case, that is simply a statement about what vegetarians say, not that it is true.

You're making pretty broad statements about animal's capacity for kinship there. Many mammals and birds clearly do remember other animals for long periods, especially their offspring. Cows, pigs and chickens have also been shown to remember other animals and establish relationships with them. I don't see any sources for you claims either, and to say the elephant is one of the few exception (perhaps on the back of the idiom about elephants having good memories) is pretty weak. --komencanto 11:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This page is ridiculous. "People have assumed that intelligence is linked to the ability to suffer and that because animals have smaller brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic, sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated to seek it, you only have to watch how cows and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's day. Just like humans." [2] Mr. Webster is a professor of animal husbandry, not a behaviorist, a psychologist, or a neurologist. Much of this article borders on, or is guilty of anthropomorphism, as is the this paragraph. Just because cows and lambs might look like they act with human feelings, doesn't mean they necessarily do, or that it denotes the same underlying causes and feelings.

Are you some sort of dualist then? Do animals lack souls and thus their pain is somehow different from ours? The amusing thing is that those disciplines you mention would laugh at you if you tried to make that kind of claim. Deleuze 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If a chicken is depressed and wants to end it all, is it ethically sound for me to assist the suicide, and then eat her afterwards? Beerathon 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Plant consciousness

The NPOV of the portion of the article relating to the sentience of plants is questionable at best. Simply because certain plants exhibit more rapid, pronounced movement than others is by no means actual evidence that plants are conscious and aware of their environment. Ralphael 10:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the whole section seems a bit strange to me. I've removed this sentance that was at the end since it really doesn't seem to have much to do with plant conciousness at all. "Crop cultivation usually involves the death of insects and small mammals - something most vegetarians ignore." --Frantik 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed this section, it has no proper citation, only a link to an article talking about the study briefly. The only claim in the article is that plants respond to environmental changes. This is not a sign of consciousness, automatic responses do not make you self aware. If anyone disagrees please find a good citation before putting it back. HighInBC 17:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

anthropomorphism

I removed this sentence about anthropomorphism in the 'ethics of killing for food' section: "However this assumption can be seen as anthropomorphism, or the applying of human-like traits or feelings to non-human things."

This sentence is better off in the discussion beween vegetarians and non vegetarians. It is quite clear that it is anthropomorphism.. but what isn't clear is wether or not it is an incorrect assumption. Pain and pleasure are human feelings, yet i don't doubt other animals feel them. They may not experience them in the exact same way you or I do, but then again I don't even know if I experience pain in the same way as any other person.

--Frantik 06:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

I have removed the POV tag from the top of the page, in my opinion it seems to be very balanced now. New points for or against have a clear place to go either as an argument or a rebuttal. Though the main text seems balanced to me, I still am going to check the reference section and the see also section. These are all pro vegetarianism, I will remove any that are off topic, and I will include references that support the other side of the argument. HighInBC 16:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I have changed the references and see also sections a bit, I am now satisfied with it. Phew, what a journey. HighInBC 16:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur with HighInBC; there seems to be a genuine attempt to adopt a NPOV stance throughout the article. Colonel Tom 12:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This article seems very POV against eating meat. It reads like a vegetarianism pamphlet. I am coming back in a day or two to take a closer look. HighInBC 15:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Some questions I intend research before editing are:

  • Does the biology of humans designed to eat meat?
  • After some quick research I am finding contradictory data on this. It is hard to find information not laden with opinion on the matter, I will keep looking. HighInBC 20:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Humans are like pigs and bears. Humans don't have multiple stomachs like a cow or 6 sets of molars like an elephant. The digestive tract is medium-length. Humans have several types of teeth. AlbertCahalan 23:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether not eating meat causes health problems (lack of vitamin B12, etc...)
  • I have found research to indicate that vegetarian and vegan mothers are more likely to have certain problems having children[1][2]. HighInBC 18:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Can the world produce enough non-meat food?
  • After some initial research the answer seems to be yes. HighInBC 20:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What would happen to the population of domestic animals if we stopped eating them?
It wouldn't stop just like that, over a night. We can slowly reduce.
  • What about species that have been created for food and cannot survive in the wild (farm cows, domestic waterfowl etc...), what will happen to them?
Same thing. We can slowly reduce.
  • Is eating animals part of our primitive history?
  • Again, contradictory data. General consensus is that we have eaten meat regularly through our ancient history. Other sources claim otherwise. HighInBC 20:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
What does this has to do with ethics? Weak statement anyways.
  • Which societies have had long term vegetarianism as their normal way of life?
  • Hindu (please correct me if I am wrong about this) HighInBC 20:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. You are right. Hindu Society has atleast 4000 years of unbroken history of being vegetarians. Arun.blue 12:13, 24 July 2006 (EST)
Same here. What does this has to do with the ethics of meat-eating?

Some things that are already in the article that I intend to check to validity of:

  • everyone is free to choose not to eat meat or use animal products without sacrificing their health.
This goes both ways.

Some statements that seem opinionated that I wish to make more NPOV, most of these statements come from the opinion that animals are equal to humans:

  • Some, after accepting animal sentience argue that killing animals is acceptable as long as they do not feel pain. This would suggest that painlessly killing a human was acceptable.
  • removed HighInBC 16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Some counter by claiming that such an argument seems to deny moral responsibility for things which one pays another to carry out and suggests one does not have a responsibility to exclude oneself from something which one considers immoral - again something few would agree with.
  • removed HighInBC 16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The principle that not bringing a being into existence is ethically inferior to creating a being and then killing it is rarely applied. It would suggest that not having a child if one could was immoral in itself and even immoral when compared with having a child and then killing it.
  • This sentence assumes that people are equal to humans. If anyone wishes to add something like "People that believe animals are equal to humans may find this..." feel free.

This article is also poorly laid out. Many paragraphs follow the myth/fact format where an argument for eating meat is presented and it's fault is shown. This is not NPOV. I eventually want to make two sections called Arguments why eating meat is unethical and Arguments why eating meat is ethical. Each one will have a series of point supporting it's argument, with sub points with opposing arguments.

I am not here to argue that eating meat is ok. I do think it is, but this is not the place for my opinion. I do think the argument for eating meat is underrepresented here, and I intend to fix it. I will be careful to retain my neutrality.

If anyone has any comments on my observations please make them and I will take them into account. As it stands, this page needs a lot of work. HighInBC 16:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair notice

I do not want to step on any one's toes here, so I have made a duplicate of this article in my userspace. You can find it here: User:HighInBC/Ethics of eating meat/major reformat archived

Before I make a major change, I will set my copy to the current revision, make the change in my userspace and post a request for comment here. Once I post a request for comment changes can be made to the version in my userspace and then discussed here before effecting the actual article. I am doing this out of consideration.

Please note that I will still be performing lesser changes in the conventional manner. I will probably only use this when I do a complete reformatting to an easier to read article.

  • I have done a major reformatting of this article, before I replace the current one with it I wanted to give fair notice and give people a chance to offer their opinions. You can see the current version at User:HighInBC/Ethics of eating meat/major reformat archived. If nobody has any valid objections by tomorrow I am going to replace this article with the new reformatted one. HighInBC 18:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have implemented the reformatting, let me know what you think. HighInBC 14:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethics of vegetarianism vs. Ethics of eating meat

This page does not seem to bring into question whether being a vegetarian is ethical, nobody seems to be denying that. The page seems to question whether eating meat is ethical.

The name Ethics of eating meat makes more sense to me since eating meat is the ethical question. Any comments? I will change the page name tomorrow unless a good argument is presented. HighInBC 17:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the name of this article to Ethics of eating meat HighInBC 18:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism is intrinsically no more "ethical" than being omnivorous. - FrancisTyers 14:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard an arguement that not eating meat is unethical. And if it is or isn't the subject of the article is ethics of eating meat. And article on the ethics of vegetarianism would be about if it is moral to not eat meat. A sublte distinction. HighInBC 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for arguments and rebuttals

  • "One should survive in the manner that causes the least harm" should IMHO include a rebuttal that not eating meat may not cause the least harm i.e. the "The farming of plants harms animals" potentially as bad as meat eating.--Hq3473 15:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point, I will add that. HighInBC 16:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Animals have no soul so it is ethical to kill them" really talks about pain not soul and so does the rebuttal, should it be changed to "Animals feel no pain so it is ethical to kill them" and edited?--Hq3473 15:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting point, I agree. I have made that change. HighInBC 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I still feel that this heading mixes some arguments together, such as feeling no pain and having no soul. I will attempt to correct it, keeping in mind that there is a separate free will argument.--Hq3473 15:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Better. Thanks for the help, I have done so much with this article it is hard to notice things like that after a point. HighInBC 16:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that some environmental argument should be added.
  • Both for eating meat - climate & intercontinental transport of fresh veggies, grazing dependent ecologies (eg. meadows) - and eating vegetables - pure energy consumption during producing. - G3, 14:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Things to address

A few things that need to be addressed in the article, thanks to Ataricodfish for pointing these out to me in the peer review of this article. HighInBC 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Does anybody think the quote from Denis Leary is innapropriate because he is not an expert in ethics? I believe that since his statement is an ethical argument when viewed seperate from his name that his expertise is not important here. Opinions?? HighInBC 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that Peter Singer's sections need to have a citation, or his arguements need to be presented seperately from his name. HighInBC 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Can anybody think of another way to put opinions into context than saying things like 'Some people believe...', we need to qualify that theses statements are opinion and not fact somehow, but the current manner it is being done does look sloppy to me. HighInBC 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Most arguments are mere stubs right now and need to be filled out. Some have no rebuttals, even when valid rebuttals probably exist. HighInBC 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)



I saw the request for pear review on Talk:Environmental vegetarianism. First off my back ground: vegan 18 years ago, now "a poor excuse for a vegan". I'd still say the article is a little pro vegie/vegan, there seem to be more rebuttals to reasons for eating meet, which are less well covered. More citations would be good, especially from academia. Here's a few curve balls:

  • Thanks for the comments, I agree that it is still unbalanced. All I have done is remove clear POV statements and arrage the article in a manner that presents both arguments equally. More arguments and rebuttals are needed, and existing ones need to be filled out. HighInBC 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The hypocrite argument, frequent had to deal with this one, from meet eaters. Basically it is hypocritical to not eat meat but to use other animal products. Often extended to eating vegetables as well.
  • Perhaps this arguments could be labelled People regularly harm animals through means not involving eating them, or something along those lines? HighInBC 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am unfamiliar with this, perhaps you could add something about it. HighInBC 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hospitality: by refusing to eat meet when visiting a meet eater can cause them anguish and stress. In particular when visiting my mum she gets very stressed if she has to cook vegan. In effect this can be seen as imposing your own moral stance onto another person. Which is more important, maintaining a moral stance or family and relationships. This can be taken further to a conflict between vegetarianism and other cultures, if visiting a foreign culture is it dis-respectful to refuse their hospitality and reject their customs? Can a hard line attitude Leeds to ghettoisation and separatism.
  • There is a sentence stating that people may eat meat or not based upon how they were raised by their parents/society. As for Not eating meat can be seen as bad manners, this seems to be cancelled out by Eating meat can be seen as bad manners. I think this argument ethically cancels itself out. Opinions? HighInBC 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The flip side of this when non meet eater enter your home. In particular I was running a education centre for permaculture which had a strongly vegan ethic. May people were put off attending by our strict veganism, was this counter productive in effectively baring some of the population.
  • Same as abouve
  • Individual action is not effective. More a political/pragmatic argument. What real difference does it make by one person not eating meet, it probably will not have an effect on the total number of animals killed.
  • Animals will be farmed and killed even if I do not eat them, this could be an argument for eating meat, but the rebuttal would simply state It can be argued that one cannot excuse unethical behavior by the fact that many other people are doing it.. I invite you to add such an argument. HighInBC 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Environmental reasons for continuing animal production. May of our habitats have been shaped by our use of animals over many years, and have developed a unique ecosystem. To preserve those habitats requires continuing grazing by domesticated animals.
  • Very interesting point, this would probably need some kind of citation though, you know any? HighInBC 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wild animals, we have removed the top predators from our ecosystems which mean that certain species can expand unchecked. This can have long term environmental damage, in particular dear can be devastating to forestry. Dear stalking for food, is an effective means of controlling the population.
  • This is worthy of a section, I will add it late if nobody else does. HighInBC 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Certain parts of our environment, especially upland areas are not suitable for any other production than grazing.
    • Rebutal, plenty of plants would grow in these areas if grazing animals were removed.
  • This would fit under Some cultures are not able to survive without meat, perhaps a sentence or two should be added there to reflect this argument. HighInBC 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

--Salix alba (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! HighInBC 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This article is currently hopelessly one-sided. It sets up arguments for eating meat and then proceeds to "rebutt" them. I'm not sure an NPOV article could be created, besides are we talking about eating meat in general, or specifically humans eating meat? - FrancisTyers 14:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be assumed in any ethics article, such as 'Ethics of abortion' or 'Ethics of the death penalty' that humans are the subject. We are the only animal held to ethical consideration. I agree this article is still POV, but not due to the way it is formatted. This article lacks content, people need to fill in the areas that are lacking attention. Notably rebuttals to arguements against eating meat are lacking. HighInBC 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality isn't about which side has the most arguments. It's about representing the case as neutral as possible. If you have any arguments against meat-eating or for meat-eating, just add it. The more the merrier, but make them correct and neutral!

Most people?

The article said in its first sentence:

While most people do not have ethical issues with eating meat, many people consider [it] as unethical.

I am not sure at all that most people have no ethical issues with eating meat. Such a statement would at least require some supporting reference. On the contrary, I would say that almost all cultures in the world do exhibit qualms about eating animals; sometimes they are important, or even central qualms. A notable exception may be the Western world. But the Western world is not the world. I also think that most people even in Western cultures have more or less clearly suppressed feelings of guilt about the treatment of animals. A recent study in France showed a surprisingly great number of people (at least 20%) who admitted that killing animals for food may very well not be ethically correct.

I am not pushing for the article to state this (unless I myself take the time to document my statements better), just for the opening sentence to be more NPOV. That is why I have reformulated it:

While many people do not have ethical issues with eating meat, others consider [it] as unethical.

David Olivier 13:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In justification of reverting to a "most people" formulation (change made on 01:30, 23 April 2006), Hq3473 says: "brought back "most" because meat eaters are a majority of population are meat eaters see http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2003issue3/vj2003issue3poll.htm". I have reverted that to a "many people" formulation: From "Most people generally have no ethical issues with eating meat. Others object..." to "While many people have no ethical issues with eating meat, others object...".
It is not clear from the link given by Hq3473 that most people (i.e. humans) in the world are meat-eaters - the poll and discussion only about US population. Furthermore, it is only about what people actually eat; is even less clear (it is actually quite false, I believe) that being a meat-eater implies that one has "no ethical issues with eating meat". The fact that a certain percentage of men are rapists doesn't imply that that number of men have "no ethical issues with raping".
Unless someone can bring up a study showing that most people have no ethical issues with eating meat ("no issues" = none at all), I propose to leave the formulation as it is, with "many people". Actually I believe that formulation too is mistaken, and that in fact hardly anyone has no ethical issues with eating meat; the qualms people do have just don't come out, because there is a general pressure in our society against voicing them. But I don't think I will press this matter now.
David Olivier 10:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Like many things... Watch out for weasels. I actually tried to NPOV the lead a bit, but wasn't very successful. I maintain that this article is unavoidably slanted in the direction of the pro-vegetarian/vegan POV. See Ethical aspects of abortion for a better example. - FrancisTyers 11:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added in some more stuff and as is clear from the diffs, I've used weasel words, the page is so full of them anyway that it seems pointless to stop now. Perhaps when all the information is in we can go through and remove them one by one. - FrancisTyers 12:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
In what way was the old formulation POV? All it did was to briefly state what makes eating meat problematic in the minds of those for whom it is problematic. Aren't those points, and the arguments given in favor and against them, what this article is supposed to be about?
The new formulation you have devised immediately speaks of religion, instead of ethics. The subject is ethics. The attitudes religions have towards meat-eating are relevant, but certainly not enough to figure so promenently.
For clarity, here is the old formulation:
While many people have no ethical issues with eating meat, others object to either the act of killing and eating an animal, or the agricultural practices surrounding the production of meat. Reasons for objecting in principle to the practice of killing, may include a belief in animal rights, or an aversion to inflicting pain or harm on other living creatures. Many believe that the treatment which animals undergo in the production of meat and animal products obliges them to never eat meat or use animal products, even if this is a considerable inconvenience.
And the new one by FrancisTyers:
The ethics of eating meat, or certain types of meat are much discussed in many major philosophies and religions in the world. Some religions prohibit the eating of animal meat entirely, others merely circumscribe the meat of a particular animal or animals. Other religions require that animals be killed in a specific way, such as Halal or Kosher.
Even if not explicitly prohibited by religion, some people might object either to the act of killing an animal, the act of eating flesh or the agricultural practices surrounding the intensive production of meat and meat products.
I propose to revert to the old formulation.
David Olivier 13:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
For the majority of vegetarians in the world, not-eating-meat is a religious issue Vegetarianism#Religious. I adapted the lead from the Ethical aspects of abortion article. - FrancisTyers 13:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Further to that, the previous version left out that certain people only have ethical issues with eating a certain type of meat, or meat from a certain animal or group of animals. - FrancisTyers 13:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Reverted to the version of the lead which didn't refer to religion. I added in a reference to having ethical issues only from certain kinds of meats. David Olivier 06:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

POossible Spam?

I propose we delete the Veggie Pride link at the bottom of the article(Ethics_of_eating_meat#External_links), while it may be a notable organization/event the link itself does not take a reader to any useful information tha discusses ethics of eating meat. I will assume good intentions for now, but personally i do not see how following the link will give a reader any more information on ethics of eating meat that then the article does not already provide. All the points made in manifesto are already made in "Cause least harm" and "Animals have feelings and can suffer" subsections. --Hq3473 15:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

See answer below. David Olivier 16:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete reference to the Veggie Pride?

In response to Hq3437 in the "POossible Spam" header above.

First of all, putting the discussion under that header is offensive, and at odds with the desire you seem to express to really discuss the issue.

About the issue itself: the purpose of this page is not to come to a conclusion about whether eating meat is ethically right or wrong. I don't think it would be possible to reach any kind of consensus on that matter at present times (just as it wouldn't have been possible to reach a consensus about the ethics of slavery two centuries ago).

As I understand the NPOV guidelines, the page should only be about the state of the arguments that exist today in people's minds. So the arguments themselves are relevant, and also the fact that those arguments are held by real people. That is why the opening sentence is relevant ("While many people do not have ethical issues with eating meat, others consider [it] as unethical.") For the same reason, the existence of the Veggie Pride and its manifesto are relevant. No one has questioned, it seems, the relevancy of the first sentence, so I don't see why anyone should question that of the reference to the Veggie Pride.

Furthermore, there are arguments in the Veggie Pride manifesto that are not on this page. The very first sentence, for instance, starts by "To refuse to rob sentient beings of their sole possessions, of their very flesh, of their very lives...", which is, on the face of it, an argument about rights, about a property ("to rob" implies something like a right). If I am not mistaken, there are no such references in the current text. That is but an example. There are also factual claims, about the way qualms about the ethics of eating meat are silenced. You may agree or not with that, but it remains information concerning the arguments that exist today in people's minds.

Sorry for the heading, I am glad to see that you are working on the article. Yet I cannot agree with including the link. First of all, I said nothing about POV, External links can be POV as long as they provide more-in-depth look on the issue. Which Veggie Pride does not. Re-Read the introductory paragraph: "Reasons for objecting in principle to the practice of killing may include a belief in animal rights, or an aversion to inflicting pain or harm on other living creatures." This makes the point of Veggie Pride Manifesto that they "refuse to rob sentient beings of their sole possessions, of their very flesh, of their very lives.." it is included in either "animal rights" or "no pain" parts, and the link(on its face) does not provide any more in-depth analysis of the issue. Therefore the link should be deleted. --Hq3473 06:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have added a "scope" section and a "public/private issue" section - see below. A direct reference to the Veggie Pride will be in the second of these sections. David Olivier 09:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Veggie Pride is a propaganda website - it is beyond the scope of rational ethical debate, and therefore needs to be removed. Here are a couple of quotes from its manifesto:
We are unworthy parents for not teaching our children the joys of dead flesh. If we care for animals we must be Nazi sympathizers since Hitler too loved dogs.
...we are as alive and healthy as anyone else, despite those media-promoted "specialists" whose science consists of denying the facts
See what I mean? Any external links from this page should surely direct to websites concerned with the 'ethics of eating meat' debate as a specific subject, otherwise you might as well link to meat marketing websites as well. Feel free to link to Veggie Pride on the page Politics of eating meat, if anyone fancies starting that one up. Beerathon 14:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


The "Tu Quoque" environmental rebuttal

I have deleted the rebuttal added by FrancisTyers. This is the argument, and the rebuttal by FrancisTyers:

Damage to the environment
A combination of the Conservation ethic and the environmental benefits of vegetarianism, this argument claims that consuming meat is less ethical than vegetarianism because it is more damaging to the environment. More detailed information on this argument (and criticism of it) is available in the topic Environmental vegetarianism.
Rebuttal
* Most vegetarians engage in far more environmentally unsound practices than eating meat.

No references or data are brought in justification of that rebuttal. Most vegetarians? Even the millions of vegetarians in India? Since most vegetarians in the world may well be in poor countries, it is probable that they use less cars, fly less, have less central heating, etc. than most meat-eaters.

Furthermore, the rebuttal is extremely vague. What are those environmentally unsound practices most vegetarians engage in? I would be surprised to find that there are some that are "far more environmentally unsound" than eating meat; the impact of eating meat is well known to be one of the most costly practices in environmental terms; perhaps the most costly.

Lastly, it is a tu quoque argument. In other words, it says nothing about whether eating meat is or is not environmentally costly, just that vegetarians are not better people than non-vegetarians on other counts. There may be as many rapists among vegetarians as among meat-eaters, but I don't think that that qualifies as a rebuttal of ethical arguments against eating meat.

It is true that such tu quoque arguments are often brought up in discussions about vegetarianism, and that may justify their being on this page. But certainly they would have to be refined and supported much more than in the above rebuttal, and address the issue as to in what way it may be relevant (for instance: you might say that it shows that vegetarians themselves do not really believe what they say when they bring up environmental arguments, because if they did they would also refrain from driving cars, etc.).

David Olivier 13:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The reason I added it is because the rest of the page is also a logical fallacy. And I am not making a point, I am merely adding information that in future should be cited. If we were to remove all the uncited information we would be left with quite a bare page. - FrancisTyers 13:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, if you are going to edit war over it, leave it out. - FrancisTyers 13:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to it if it didn't make what it says appear as an accepted fact, and if it addressed (in one way or another) the issue of its being a logical fallacy. David Olivier 14:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Scope

Is the scope of the article supposed to encompass the specific ethical arguments against eating the meat of an animal — that is, divorced from production, environmental factors, basically in such a way as going to a river, catching a fish and eating it — or shooting a rabbit, skinning it and eating it is unethical. Or is it supposed to encompass the intensive agricultural and subsequent environmental devastation that this causes. If it is to be the latter, information about how vegetarians contribute to this should be included in the interests of NPOV. It is possible to eat meat and be environmentally sound, it is also possible to not eat meat and be environmentally sound. The two are not particularly connected on an ethical level. What I am trying to say is that eating meat or not is completely divorced from the question of environmentalism. Someone who eats roadkill is not a vegetarian, but equally they are not supporting the environmental devastation of intensive agriculture. - FrancisTyers 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Would an article on the ethics of the death penalty have to be so specifically focused as to be divorced from the anguish caused by death sentences to the convicts and their families, from the danger of executing innocent people, and generally from any concrete consequence the death penalty may have? That would be patently absurd. I believe the discussion about the ethics of eating meat can comprise both absolutist arguments (those often put forward by philosophers of animal rights) and consequentialist ones (often put forward by utilitarians). All kinds of arguments may be relevant. They just should be well-formulated and attempt to address objections and state facts that are undisputed or at least plausible.
  • The issue of the harm vegetarians do is relevant, in my mind, only if it is harm that they do because they are vegetarians. Saying that some vegetarians are also rapists is not relevant, unless you show that they are rapists because they are vegetarians.
David Olivier 15:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed some rebuttals

Rebuttals

  • A meat-based diet may kill more animals because you have to raise crops for fodder.

Asserts that you have to raise crops for fodder which is not true. Unless a source can be found that states "in order to eat meat you have to raise crops for fodder". - FrancisTyers 14:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttals

  • There are other means in which to control population for ex. inserting predators to eat the meat.

I'm not quite sure what this is trying to say. On the surface it seems absurd — it is ethically better to introduce predators into a population? - FrancisTyers 14:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I too find the "predator" rebuttal absurd. However, I have often seen it mentioned, so if someone would expand on it, addressing the issue of its apparent absurdity, that would be OK for me.
I have added an expanded version of the rebuttal against "Farming plants harms animals". The issue here is also that brought up by FrancisTyers in the "Scope" paragraph above. I don't think the scope of this article should be narrowed down to something like "Is it always in all imaginable circumstances unethical to eat flesh?" I actually know not one single person who believes that (there may be some, but I bet not many). Hardly any ethical disputes are framed in such a narrow way, and I don't see why it should be the case for this one.
David Olivier 15:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be made clear that this is not what is being argued then. That is essentially the vegetarian ideology. I can't see any ethical arguments against eating roadkill — and yet this is still eating meat. Perhaps something about this could be added. Perhaps the page could be renamed to Ethical aspects of a meat based diet which would probably be more accurate for the page at the moment. After all, someone who eats roadkill once per year is a "meat eater". - FrancisTyers 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be pointed out btw, that most of the arguments Arguments why eating meat is ethical are strawmen — perhaps I should just let you get on with it. - FrancisTyers 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Such meat production might then be ethically preferable, from an abstract point of view. However, eating meat may also have a symbolic value, as a statement that the life of the animal eaten is of little worth. Only in a society where the interests of other sentient beings are given due consideration can methods be devised to minimize the harm done to animals in the production of crops. To work towards such a society, it is necessary to forgo the consumption of the flesh of animals.
Zuh? - FrancisTyers 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Many of the arguments here should be in Ethical aspects of intensive farming. This page should cover the ethics of all meat eating — over time — so indigenous peoples etc. - FrancisTyers 15:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Personaly, I call myself an ethical vegetarian (a vegan, actually), despite having no ethical argument against eating roadkills (other people may have some). When I discuss the ethics of eating meat, roadkill is obviously not the central point, neither for me or for the people I am discussing with. If you ask people about the ethics of eating human flesh, they will not think you are talking about whether we should or shouldn't nibble on the skin around our fingernails. When people mention cannibalism, that is not what they have in mind. I myself, surprise!, sometimes swallow my own saliva, despite its being an animal product. Do you want to say I am not a vegan because of that? Don't you think you are quibbling?
I'm not interested in ethical arguments about an absolute ban on eating animal flesh under any circumstances whatever. I don't think that interests anyone. Religious people of various faiths may have such an absolute ban, but then they would be interested by pages concerning their specific bans, not by a page that would want to bring together the arguments of different religions. (Actually I don't think any religion opposes nibbling on the skin around our fingernails, so the page would be completely void.)
David Olivier 16:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum — valid but you miss the point. Nibbling the skin around fingernails, or even eating ones own fingers is not the point, neither is eating other peoples provided it is consensual. You are probably not a vegan for other reasons, but animal products in veganism is usually taken to mean non-human animals. You bring up a good point, this page should have a pointer (although probably shouldn't cover in depth) to Cannibalism. I had suspected you were a vegetarian, but vegan seems more appropriate — I don't really see any point in us continuing this discussion, I will remove the page from my watchlist. - FrancisTyers 16:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that nibbling the skin around ones fingernails is not what is usually meant by eating meat. Neither is eating roadkills. (How many meat-eaters do you know who eat no other meat than roadkills?)
I suspect you are a meat-eater.
David Olivier 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if eating our own fingers, or those of other people provided it is consensual, does not make us non-vegetarians, why do you say that someone who eats roadkill is not a vegetarian? I don't think that dead animals object to being eaten. David Olivier 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttals

  • Development of a society that allows for a non-meat diet reintroduces the ethical problems solved by this argument.

Removed, what does this mean? - FrancisTyers 15:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that sentence is not comprehensible. David Olivier 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Descartes

I don't see what you mean by "Descartes made of straw". If he was made of straw, it would be OK to eat him?

15:47, 23 April 2006 FrancisTyers (→Animals feel no pain - descartes is made of straw)

The part you deleted is:

This view [that animals cannot think because they have no soul] was shared by Descartes, who held the dualist belief that thoughts and feelings such as pain occur in the incorporeal soul rather than the brain. According to Descartes animals have no soul, their actions being the simple cause and effect responses of automata and they are therefore incapable of feeling pain.

That was rather clearly the position of Descartes. There is also a long tradition in biology that claims that animals are not sentient, or that sentience is an empty concept. For references, see for instance the article by a friend and myself, Science and the Denial of Animal Consciousness. That tradition can easily be traced to Descartes. I propose to put that part back in.

David Olivier 16:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the Descartes part (put it back in) - David Olivier 16:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Added a "scope" section"

Admittedly this section needs is only a stub (is it possible to flag just a section as a stub?). I believe however that it is important to frame the scope of the problem. The discussions so far seem extraordinarly removed from the immense amount of suffering and death involved.

If some find the wording POV, please attempt to make it NPOV, rather than deleting the section.

David Olivier 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Added a "private/public issue" section

Like the "scope" section, this section seems necessary to me. Not all vegetarians see eating meat as an issue for public intervention, but many do. I will add references to the website of the movement for the abolition of meat. The reference to the Veggie Pride site should come under this heading.

David Olivier 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub

This article should be vastly expanded. I have flagged it as a stub. David Olivier 09:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is way too long to be considered a stub. Check here for more information about what is a stub. Amalas 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Olivierd, perhaps you can label some sections as section stubs HighInBC 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Greatly improved since a few months ago, but...

Hi all. This article has improved an enormous amount since I looked at it months ago, excellent work by all involved. (Last time I looked, I just rolled my eyes and went elsewhere).

However, there are still a few bits which I'd like to change. There is a lot of 'it could be argued...', and while I appreciate that you're trying to cover all the angles, I think it would be better to cite stuff published by (eg) ethical philosophers, animal rights activists, farming industry lobbies, etc. This would involve cutting some of the lamest arguments, eg in the 'necessity' section, 'It could be argued that if it is moral for any human to eat meat then it is moral for all people to eat meat.' I don't think you will be able to find a reputable source making this argument because it is so flimsy. (replace the word 'meat' with 'human flesh' and think about this.)

If no-one has any objections, I will chop a few of these 'some people argue...' bits one-by-one over the next few days. Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Question

There are references in this article ascribed to Abrahamic or Judeo-Christian traditions that are not correct. Indeed, I removed Islam from that equation because the Prophet was very clear about the punishment brought about by causing animal suffering.

The obscured reference to Judaism contained within this should actually state that according to Judaism, Jews have a soul Gentiles do not have, never mind animals, the Nefesh Elokis. Animals actually have the same souls that Gentiles have but not the superior Jewish soul.

But there is also the concept of "Gilgul" within which the possibility that the soul of a human being coming down to this world in the body of an animal in order to reach its perfection exists. In such a case, the animal is driven by the standard animal soul and the human soul is imprisoned within it, with very little opportunity to express itself. When the animal dies, it is not the soul of the animal that goes to heaven, but rather the soul of the human being that was trapped in it.

Therefore, the statement in the article should reflect the fact that some elements of Judaism believe that within some animals are fully sentient human souls, to kill and eat them would cause suffering and be unethical, and that within animals and gentiles in general is a soul but a lower kind of soul. By the logic of the topic, that would make it OK to eat gentiles too ...

[ src : Arizal's Sha'ar HaGilgulim Hakdoma 22, Arizal's Sefer HaLikutim beginning of Bereishit, Nachmanides commentary on Genesis 1:29 and in parshat Eikev. Also, Proverbs 12:10: "The righteous person considers the soul (life) of his or her animal." Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Horeb, Chapter 60, #415 and 416, Chapter 72, #482, and the principle of " tsa'ar ba'alei chayim " ]

That seems to leave Christianity alone on the " no soul " stand but then within Christianity, it was widely believed that women did even have a soul until quite recently.

Your comments.

195.82.106.244 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. HighInBC 13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very happy

I am very happy to see so much work being done here, the article has certainly improved since I last looked. HighInBC 20:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Being respectful to animals

Many hunter gatherer tribes will apologize to or thank an animal which has been killed, excusing themselves on the basis that they had to eat the animal in order to survive.

This statement is actually fairly untrue in many cases. Native American tribes, for example, ask permission to hunt before they do and then thank them afterwords. While it may be true that some cultures "apologize" afterwords, I can't think of an example. In addition, the cultures doesnt feel any need to "excuse" themselves because under there own ethics they have fulfilled there obligations. I'd update it... but I really don't have any sources... Just something to update latter. ---J.S (t|c) 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call. HighInBC 13:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

B12 vitamin

  • eating fortified foods, B12-tablets or dairy products and eggs may prevent or reduce these health problems.

How exactly is this more ethical than consuming meat itself? Is the source of B12 vitamin in tablets synthetic or natural? Does (possible) synthetic production cause less harm to nature than eating meat (energy cost, transportation, chemical spills, pollution, etc..)? Is imprisoning, exploiting and letting animals die "naturally" somehow better than imprisoning, exploiting and then killing them? Are food additives ethically acceptable?

IMO that rebuttal asks more questions than it answers. - G3, 15:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't let old chickens live out their twilight years, once they are too old for laying eggs, they are killed. HighInBC 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Social or more humanist concers

Has anyone thought to add to the list of ethically considerable factors the human situation in slaughterhouses? I had never thought of possible issues of abused humans in the production process until I read a Mother Jones article back in 2001. According to the article most meatpacking plants have little insurance or pention plans; often doctors are in-house company men not looking for the patient's best interests. The article probably discusses more, but I've not read it in 5 years.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2001/07/meatpacking.html

-Brian C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.252.210 (talk • contribs)

  • The subject of this article is the ethics of eating meat. I think it is a real stretch to include how some humans are treated in the production of some meat. HighInBC 21:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Many people (myself included) choose to avoid eating meat because of its mode of production, not just because they are opposed to the eating of flesh. Details of factory farming are absolutely essential to this discussion. Deleuze 22:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Indeed. It seems every bit as relevant to the ethics of eating meat as soil depletion and other environmental concerns. One often argues this way; I don't drive a car partly because of emissions, not because it's bad for cars. --Brian C.

Deleting the link to the 'logical analysis' of Singer's article

This is a just a blog entry written by a joe-schoe with a self-importance complex. Singer's article isn't presented in any form for analysis; all we're presented with is the author's very slanted (and highly questionable) statements against Singer's writing.

Nothing new is brought to the table, the author appears to have a very limited (if one at all) academic background, and the logical fallacies are rampant.

If there's a reason to keep this link listed, feel free to put it here and restore the article.

totallydisputed

To who put the totallydisputed tag onto this article, please outline your specific concerns, if not I will remove it. HighInBC 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Health??

I find the sub-section on health to be completely off topic. How does whether meat is healthier or not make it more or less ethical to eat meat? Doing medical research on animals, for example, is surely beneficial to humans; but is it ethical? That whole section should go. - Cribananda 04:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it is an argument towards it being ethical, not evidence in itself. If I cannot consider my own survival and health in my ethical considerations then I might as well just die now. Why is my life less worthy of ethical consideration than that of an animal? By extension of your argument eating vegetables is no more ethical. What about taking antibiotics and killing innocent bacteria? I am not saying you are wrong, but I don't think you are right. The section is a valid as the article itself is. HighInBC 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Your life isn't less worthy of ethical considerations. There is no requirement to give up your life to become a vegetarian. Eating a balanced, healthy diet is quite possible as a vegetarian. Giving up a pleasurable activity might be a sacrifice, but that doesn't mean it is an unethical act. Your discussion of bacteria and plants is another line of argumentation entirely, and mixing the two only muddles the issue. Suffice it to say that most vegetarians (and scientists) believe that plants and microbes lack consciousness (or at least the ability to feel pain) whereas most animals do not. Deleuze 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I was reffering to the health problems caused by not eating meat, that are clearly cited in the health section. And as for conscioiusness, that was not in discussion when I compared to vegetables and bacteria. I still believe the section is valid. HighInBC 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as the argument is that it is a necessity, it's all right - not some general health advantages. How is listing the advantages and disadvantages of vegetarianism then different from ethics of eating meat? There is a fine distinction: Yes, your own survival should be a part of the ethical consideration, but not some extra health benefits. For example, would you consider the fact that a murderer becomes $100,000 richer to ethically justify the murder? - Cribananda 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This sort of far stretched reasoning tends to confuse me. What does murdering a person have to do with this? Or by murder did you mean killing an animal? Either way having children with less chance of birth defects alone morally justifies eating meat. HighInBC 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro meat consumption argument: Human body designed to digest meat

Perhaps someone should include an argument that the human body is designed to eat meat. The argument could say something along the lines of:

  • The incisors and canines are designed for cutting and tearing meat.
  • Like carnivores and omnivores, humans produce hydrochloric acid in their stomachs, while pure herbivores do not.
  • The length of the human small intestine is halfway between that of herbivores (which have longer intestines) and carnivores (which have shorter intestines).

--JesseG88 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is mentioned under the heading Eating meat is a natural behaviour, admittedly not in much detail. There is some contention about this point as demonstrated here[5] and here[6], links I turfed off the human page - the general scientific opinion appears to be in favour of omnivorousness, though most vegetarian-driven theory leans toward herbivorousness through what appears to be a process of noticeably selective taxonomy. I may be biased, but I think its laughable to seriously compare humans to ruminants! It may also be true that we are able to digest meat, but on balance I think we are nearer the herbivore end of the spectrum: we can maintain a healthy diet through vegetarianism, but we'd become very unhealthy living on meat alone. Right, I'm off for a chicken salad. Mmmmm... best of both worlds... Beerathon 12:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You say we would be very unhealthy on meat alone. But the Inuits, who survived on meat alone before colonialization, were very healthy, happy, and long-lived, while southern Indians have some of the shortest life spans in the world. Primitive meat-eaters are generally healthier than primitive vegetarians. I actually think we are nearer to the carnivore end of the spectrum. Check this[7] out for a very interesting paper on that subject. Keep in mind that the article was written in 1935. --JesseG88 02:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

When I did a major cleanup of this page I had such information with a few weak citations. However they were removed by others who showed other weak citations stating the opposite. If someone can find a conclusive citation for this I would be very glad. HighInBC 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethics_of_eating_meat/Archive_1&oldid=390307368"