I am a meat eater. I have no qualms about admitting that I enjoy meat. I've gone stretches of days without meat, and miss it when I do. Obviously, people can live a healthy life as vegetarians.
I am not sure if I understand the difference between 'natural' an 'normal' here, as it seems that 'normal' would be a given if you thought it was 'natural'.
At any rate, I have hunted and fished for food. I'd be happy to eat vat meat if and when it is a satisfactory replacement.
Nothing you say here sheds light on the moral status of eating meat. I can honestly say all those sentences myself, and I believe most meat consumption in the United States is morally objectionable. Do you believe eating meat is ethically justifiable in most cases?I am a meat eater. I have no qualms about admitting that I enjoy meat. I've gone stretches of days without meat, and miss it when I do. Obviously, people can live a healthy life as vegetarians.
I own some clothes made in sweatshops. I have no qualms about admitting that I enjoy wearing all my clothes. I've gone stretches of days without wearing sweatshop clothes, and I miss those articles. Obviously, people can live a healthy life without owning sweatshop clothes.
That much is true. I guess I wasn't trying to make a statement about the morality of eating meat specifically. I was saying that I see enjoying it as a reasonable part of the decision. But is it morally objectionable? To a degree, I think it is. Meat causes suffering, and demand for it creates more suffering, not only animal, but justifiable links to human suffering can be made as well. If I saw meat-eating as one of a few ways that my lifestyle resulted in such suffering, I might be more inclined to minimize it, or find alternatives. However, I find that my lifestyle is linked to similar types of suffering, some of which I perceive as being worse than my meat-eating. Higher on that list would be the products of cheap human labor that I wear and consume, as you point out. I suppose the question comes down to whether or not we exit a morally objectionable system that we find we are a part of, or not, and whether or not staying within the system can be justified. Does my better understanding of an animal's suffering make me morally culpable whereas a less intelligent carnivore is not? Does my being part of a system that cannot be changed by my actions make my choice to remain within it any less objectionable? Is all suffering to be avoided, or can minimizing suffering be enough, and when? I don't know the answers to these questions. My father was a hunter, and I learned to kill and eat animals from him. It did not feel unethical, at least how we went about it. In some sense it felt as if I had assumed another role, that I became a player in the system of predator and prey that plays out without us. I do see some hunting as objectionable, however. Such as baiting a bear that you don't eat. Oddly, I don't think avoiding meat would make me feel better about my behavior.Nothing you say here sheds light on the moral status of eating meat. I can honestly say all those sentences myself, and I believe most meat consumption in the United States is morally objectionable.
You refer to my mention of sweatshops. That could make for an interesting conversation, if you don't mind departing from the topic of meat. I don't oppose sweatshops. I don't prefer clothing manufactured in facilities that guarantee comfortable conditions for workers. Suppose you are scandalized by this information. Suppose that you determine to raise my awareness of the considerable human suffering that occurs in sweatshops. Perhaps you watch documentaries to learn more about what happens in sweatshops. You discover alarming details. You feel certain that I can only act so casually toward sweatshops because I am ignorant of the truth. You post shocking photos of sweating, weary children bent over sewing machines, of corpses burned in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. You recount stories of female workers who agreed to have sex with managers in order to get better working conditions, and you use the word "rape" when describing this scenario. Your strong feelings on the topic lead you to use strong language in discussing the matter, to the point of being verbally abusive toward me. What would you think if I focused on the shocking nature of your images, and your not-strictly-precise use of the word "rape," and your abusive language, in my response? Wouldn't it seem a little convenient, a little self-serving, that I deliberately miss your point by focusing on the manner and details of your presentation? I can dismiss your entire message because you do not present it in a calm, emotionless, and unoffending manner. (For your part, you feel that it will be all too easy to ignore the message if you do not raise your voice and display arresting images. You feel your only choices are to be ignored or reviled.) What if I found exceedingly rare examples of sweatshops that were exceptions to the patterns you are concerned about? What if I asked you ridiculous questions that were obviously not honest attempts at gaining understanding, but carefully-crafted "gotchas" designed to trip up your argument? ("What about factory robots? Aren't they abused too?") Perhaps no one would blame me if I ignore you when you become abusive and incendiary. But I feel like I am doing myself a disservice by not getting to the bottom of the question "What is this person so worked up about?", even if I have to make an effort to overlook the excesses of your presentation.the products of cheap human labor that I wear and consume, as you point out.
I agree with you. We often do ourselves a disservice by become emotionally invested in an outcome that usually doesn't hang in the balance. Is that how you feel about sweatshops? I am casually aware that you've been having some meat-related discussions, but haven't read through them (As an aside, I think I am granted far more omniscience here than I have). I claim to put my concern for sweatshop workers higher than that of farm animals, but my actions don't provide much evidence. Do you prioritize their plights opposite to my claim? There is hypocrisy in my lifestyle. Hypocrisy isn't something we aren't supposed to come to terms with, and yet we all do. I have mentioned before here that I believe that what we do is what we want. I suppose if I have a streak of objectivism in me, that’s where it can be found. I don't want to be an ugly person, but I don't want only not to appear ugly. Then I am ugly and dishonest. On a very loosely related side note, I am glad that you found the flaw in my deconstruction of measurement in DC.
I'm with you: I care far more about a single human sweatshop worker than I do about any animal raised for food. My wish is to minimize needless suffering, and I suspect that humans are more capable of suffering than animals. Maybe I am wrong, maybe humans can use their intelligence to better rationalize and cope with difficult circumstances. I should also feel bad that a food animal has no hope of escape and no voice or agency to try and improve their fate. Still, I feel worse when I see a human suffering; maybe it is just bias because I am in the human club. Is there any contradiction in not opposing sweatshops? The best way to help sweatshop workers might be to sacrifice all our leisure and spare resources and dedicate ourselves to sweatshop worker relief. I am not willing to do that. Campaigning to get Nike to manufacture with stricter labor standards might cause Nike to improve working conditions in the third world ... or to close factories in the third world and move operations to more developed countries. The everyday decision we make is whether to purchase or not to purchase an item that was made in a sweatshop. Which decision helps the sweatshop worker more? Can it be helpful to an Indonesian worker to spend nothing on the product they make and buy an $80 hoodie instead? What is the sweatshop worker's next best alternative to working in the sweatshop? Whatever it is, "next best" is at least somewhat worse. I prefer to be judged by my words rather than my actions. It's easier to make nice words! So I try not to let myself get too bothered by hypocrisy and the unrealistic goal of living in perfect harmony with ideals. I think most of us are already pretty decent, and it's enough to try and be a little more decent whenever we can. What? You don't read every post on this site? I kind of assumed that you did, even though I feel Hubski is a damnable time sink even when I only skim.Is that how you feel about sweatshops? ... Do you prioritize their plights opposite to my claim?
my actions don't provide much evidence
I think I am granted far more omniscience here than I have.
This appears to be standard practice on Hubski. At most, there are expressions of concern, but the majority of the discussion has focused on the tone of the discussion, or people in the discussion, or contrived exceptions to the central question. Very little talk has been given to taking a stand on the question of whether eating meat is morally justified. I very much appreciate your candor. I think it is a hard subject to be honest about. I feel like it is not my place to tell you how to exercise your values. I am no authority and I live with a lot of compromise. I'll address some of your questions in case you were curious to know my opinion. Not sure if you mean a less-informed human carnivore, or a lion. I think none of us blame animals for behaving according to their nature. Animals are not moral agents, according to the present majority view. (I wonder if the movement to increase recognition of the human-like qualities of intelligent animals like chimpanzees could one day lead to holding a chimpanzee somehow accountable for a harmful action.) For people, "ignorance of the law" is not a legal excuse, and supporting industrial meat causes the same harm whether you realize it or not. This gives fuel to the activist, who wants to raise awareness so people will at least recognize the effects of their choices. Once you are aware of the harm, I do think it is morally suspect to refuse to acknowledge the harm, refuse to investigate it, and refuse to consider making different choices to mitigate the harm (absent a sound moral counterargument, something more sophisticated than "bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good"). This doesn't seem like such a hard question. You don't have to completely "exit a morally objectionable system" to live more ethically. You can make different choices that lead to less harm. That's the way we approach almost every moral aspect of life; you don't have to be perfect, and inability to be perfect is not a good reason give up trying to do better. Reading Michael Pollan on hunting makes me want to try it. I have learned a life lesson that deep pleasures can be had by participating in experiences common to our species from the start: running, walking, telling and hearing stories, preparing and eating food, stargazing, sitting by water, swimming. I don't buy the argument that humans are natural herbivores. I believe that "Walking with a loaded rifle in an unfamiliar forest bristling with the signs of your prey is thrilling." Ethics has shades. Shoplifting is thrilling too. That is odd, especially for someone who supports voting. With some contrived exceptions, like pulling a burger out of a trash can, any time you choose cabbage instead of chicken you are reducing your participation in and contribution to the meat industry. You said you would be "happy to eat vat meat," isn't that the same as feeling better?I wasn't trying to make a statement about the morality of eating meat specifically.
Does my better understanding of an animal's suffering make me morally culpable whereas a less intelligent carnivore is not?
Is all suffering to be avoided, or can minimizing suffering be enough, and when?
My father was a hunter
Oddly, I don't think avoiding meat would make me feel better about my behavior.
I don't think that's entirely off-base, but feel that part of the matter is that many of these issues are complex, and that it is difficult enough to settle upon a clear opinion, much less successfully communicate and defend one. As a benign example, minimum_wage asked me whether or not I considered horse-riding to be unnatural elsewhere in this post, and I could not come to a satisfactory answer. That said, it is useless gabbing about such matters if we can't make some sort of progress. Reflecting upon my motivations to eat meat, and upon my feelings regarding vat meat, I think that a significant part of my choice has to do with my desire to eat it. Taste is a significant factor. However, I have gone for up to a week without meat, and I found myself feeling physically worse over time, and much better after I began to eat it again. I am sure there are psychological components to this, but I also suspect there may be physiological components as well. My wife grew up with a high vegetable, low meat diet (nearly the opposite of mine), and she feels terrible if our circumstances prevent her from getting her veggie diet for days. I am mostly Polish and Finnish by heritage, and my ancestors ate a lot of meat, cabbage, and tubers. I often wonder if that translates into a genetic preference for a diet. We do know what physiology does vary between different peoples and their processing of some foods. In short, I suspect that vat meat could satiate my need for it, regardless of how mental or physical it might be. I knew that you would call me out about the voting. :) I don't feel dismotivated by the proportion of my small contribution to a meatless society, and I should have phrased that question differently. Rather than 'cannot be changed' I should have written something like 'cannot measureable be changed'. As I mentioned in my reasons for voting, I do believe in the power of collective action. Maybe that's part of why I would feel good about eating vat meat. I would know that I was contributing, and still feel like I was eating what felt right for me. I would recommend trying hunting. Even if you use rubber-topped arrows, or a slingshot with soft wax bullets.This appears to be standard practice on Hubski. At most, there are expressions of concern, but the majority of the discussion has focused on the tone of the discussion, or people in the discussion, or contrived exceptions to the central question.
I made light of the quote "bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good," but the pleasure of eating bacon is an excellent reason for eating it. Come to think of it ... that's really the only reason for eating bacon, “the candy of meat.” If someone told me they really loved eating meat, and they were sorry that animals had to die to provide meat, but according to their values the pleasure of eating meat is more important than whatever happens to the animals, I would consider that a sound argument (though I might ask how much they know about the meat industry).I think that a significant part of my choice has to do with my desire to eat it
there are societies in which it's abnormal to eat meat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism or think of it this way, it's normal to drive a car or otherwise ride a vehicle in American society, but definitely unnaturalI am not sure if I understand the difference between 'natural' an 'normal' here, as it seems that 'normal' would be a given if you thought it was 'natural'.
Ok, good point. Although I have to wonder if Buddhist vegetarians consider their diets as unnatural, or less natural, than that of omnivores. At any rate, the acceptance of driving over walking or riding a horse is somewhat similar. If technology allows, we can choose to adapt our behavior. I do think a lot more people would be vegetarians if the processing of their meat weren't so abstracted. Personally, I have a harder time understanding someone that eats meat but doesn't want to consider the source than someone that is comfortable with the sourcing and isn't deterred.
Good points on the sourcing. I grew up on a dairy farm where I sourced much of my own meat. I have no qualms with eating meat and it is the main component of my diet, but I also know what it took for me to eat it. I feel that a lot of "city folk" who are so abstracted from their food would be appalled at what it takes to allow them to eat a steak.
I'm not sure. Once you start talking about our tool use, cognition, etc., then most everything we do or create can be considered natural. But then what is the purpose of the word? 'Naturally occurring' isn't too difficult, unless you start splitting hair with ant hills and beaver dams. but 'natural behavior' is really muddy. I suppose it depends on how you define 'natural'. Domestication is definitely a technology. Are all technologies unnatural? If so, then I guess horse riding is unnatural. But then so are beaver dams. But then bird nests? Hell, I have no idea.
Riding a horse the right way is very natural, riding a horse the wrong way is painful and awkward.
Yes, lol, bareback and correct riding technique. Riding that looks graceful, not painful.
I think the entire premise is interesting. It basically assumes meat eating is abnormal and thus must have some psychological justification. I'd be more interested in a study of vegetarian justification (and a separate, more entertaining vegan justification). It is a funny situation when the statistical norm is considered abnormal.
Interesting article. I suspect why I eat meat is both nice and normal. I grew up in Western New York, so chicken wings and pepperoni pizza are a staple of the local food culture. I couldn't imagine going without eating these delicious foods for any extended length of time. At the same time, I would get a lot of nosy questions and concerned looks if I decided to up and stop eating meat. So basically, I have no desire to quit eating meat, and even if I did the social factor would be very off putting.
Well said. I have no problems eating meat as well. I enjoy eating meat, and so I'll only stop eating meat if 1) I stop enjoying eating meat or 2) I start having ethical concerns about eating meat. Since I still love me some burgers and still don't have any ethical concerns about eating meat, I'll keep enjoying my burgers 'till I'm as fat as a cow (hehe). I think they mean natural as in it happens all the time in nature, and normal as the sociological norm, as in, everybody does it. There is the question, however, of whether there would be more vegetarians if more people were aware/in contact with where their meat comes from. I think that everybody should, at some point, be confronted with the reality of where meat comes from.
In principle bein vegan is pretty healthy, if you manage you macros well enough and don´t overeat on sweets. I really hate to see vegans, that look like sticks, who obviously don´t eat enough kalories/proteins, and on the other side overweight ones, who obviously eat too much sweets. These people are not doing their bodys any good. Vegan is in reality not necessarily healthy, so to all vegans, please manage your food intake properly and don´t assume you are eating healthy anyway.
I eat meat because it's so easy. If I'm going out to eat with others, what's fast and cheap and almost universally likeable? A hamburger. Sure I could get a salad somewhere, but I've found their quality can vary a lot more, because ingredients need to be kept fresh and don't get the benefit of being slathered in fatty goodness. I don't eat seafood/fish for environmental reasons, but its really hard to give up all meat.
I know studies (and many people's basic daily living) have shown that vegetarian consumption can produce a healthy, sustaining diet for an individual. Is anyone aware whether those same studies indicated whether complete international vegetarianism would be sustainable? I presume a massive increase in the consumption of nuts and other non-animal protein sources, for example.
I think it's actually the reverse, where a lot of the world's and especially the US's agricultural production goes to feeding livestock which are eventually processed, rather than just using farmland to produce food for people. Meat tends to only be more efficient on marginal areas like grassland which can feed livestock but not humans, but that's not how most livestock are raised in the US anyways.
Livestock production was a way to turn inedible grasses into an edible product. Eating meat is a by-product of living in areas where animals were better prepared to survive in the climate then the nomadic people who lived there. Freezing plains in Mongolia, often poisonous jungles in South America, arid deserts in the Middle East, and the barren mountains in Europe and Asia all maintained large, ancient groups of humans where the environment would have killed them, whereas the native wildlife was accustomed to the vegetation or the environment itself. Without going into too much evolutionary biology, Humans are able to eat and process meat, and at that time it was needed. In our current globalized market we have access to all food, all year. People don't need to eat meat. It is a choice for the percentage of humanity that can afford to do so. The modern system of centralized livestock rearing is the cheapest method of raising that product available, and even though it appears to be cold and distant to people who have little experience in the process, the techniques used in raising animals in a modern system have been developed taking into account all of the necessities that the particular animal needs. It is not traditional, it is not romantic, it is not natural, but as a self aware organism, humanity refuses to stay traditional, romantic or natural; we always grow and move forward.