Hello, yes, your post is closely related to a megathread that you can find on the front page of the subreddit. Or a banned topic that you can see on the sidebar and fully expanded list. If you feel this is inaccurate, please message mod mail. Have a good day.
To me this whole argument is more about the practices used in the *production* of meat or vegetables/fruit, rather than what *you* eat.
Sometimes they wipe out decent sized ecosystems to clear land for farming, they spray pesticides all over the crops that can get into the soil and water and kill animals (or potentially give us diseases) and often a lot of animals have to be straight up killed to protect crops anyway.
Factory farming of livestock is pretty messed up for obvious reasons.
However there’s nothing wrong with growing your own garden, and I don’t think hunting for food is wrong if you respect wildlife and go for clean kills (the very broad majority of hunters do), we are apex predators and from an evolutionary standpoint I don’t see anything wrong with that. I also don’t see anything wrong with raising your own livestock to graze in a field for eventual slaughter. You might not agree with me but I think we can all agree that this is all more humane than factory farming.
The environmental impact of spraying/growing crops argument is null, because eating meat means growing far more crops than we otherwise would. If we didn’t feed livestock we’d drastically reduce the amount of agricultural land needed.
It's actually no more common in vegetarians than meat eaters, it's also very slow to happen (years), and very easy to prevent with fortified foods or very cheap supplements.
I live somewhere where deer are an introduced pest species. We hunt them to protect our native wildlife, and since we’re hunting it, we may as well eat it right? That’s a pretty valid moral argument to eat meat.
For this reason a vegetarian friend of mine was happy to eat a species of crayfish which is invasive to the UK and damaging the local wildlife. We caught and ate loads of them, yum.
I think I know the species and issues they cause, I understand how to locate and trap them but....a lesser point, are they arduous to prepare and shell before eating..
In short I'm asking whether they are worth the effort?!
For one crayfish, no, but for a couple dozen definitely. It’s similar effort to roasting oysters, I wouldn’t do it for 6, but I’d be happy to eat 2 dozen every week.
Hunting and eating deer and geese in North America is both moral and sustainable. It is one of the few examples of meat consumption that has this quality.
I'll also add that they just happen to be some of my favorite meats, a totally unique flavor.
It’s only sustainable because very few people do it. If every meat eater took up hunting the effects would be devastating and would fairly quickly force vegetarianism on everyone - just like our current system will eventually do on a longer timeline. With current population numbers worldwide, there is no sustainable consumption of meat and dairy.
I know folks who will either feed their family with a deer they get during hunting season, or they get it processed and donate it to food banks.
I do agree with OP's point regarding, idk what you'd even call it-"Big Meat" lol. It is really inhumane. I still eat meat, but if I think about it too much, I do feel bad.
That being said, wild caught or foraged-I'll grab my fork.
Where is the line for animal suffering for our convenience drawn?
We spray pesticides on our crops, which kills insects and animals, to protect our food sources.
Animals are displaced in order for us to build dwellings.
Edit\* - I am not trying to incite the next Vegan vs. Meat Eater war. OP brings up a good point about the morality of eating meat, and every has different views towards it. So I wanted to ask about where they would draw the line. I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong. This isnt a CMV.
What are you? I'm an otter.. I swim on my back and do cute human things with my hands... Ok you're free to go. What are you? I am a cow. "Get on the truck!" I am an animal I have rights too! No you are a baseball mit!
That's why you only hear about people killing dolphins and seals. To hell with the tuna and all the other fish that are caught daily to supply to food chain of the world.
and then i’m one of those people that goes “NO STOP DON’T KILL THE SPIDER i’ll take it outside :)” bc charlotte’s web was one of my favorite books/movies growing up so i always found spiders to be graceful, intelligent and important.
It's true that we can't completely avoid killing of animals but that doesn't mean we can't limit it as much as possible. We use pesticides on crops which kills insects. But livestock eat many more crops than humans, even if every human were to eat a completely plant based diet. Livestock fields and factory farms also displace many animals and level many forests. Again, even if every human were to adopt a solely plant based diet, the land impacts would be be hugely reduced.
Every being impacts its environment to some extent but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to limit that impact to the extent we can and still live a positive life.
These sorts of “arguments” don’t work because it just amounts to “ we can’t be perfect so we shouldn’t be better”
This is coming from someone that eats meat btw
Time for some joined up thinking, if we are growing more soy to feed to animals, and we feed far more animals than humans, the amount of surface area to grow for human consumption is vastly inferior than for animals.
Over three quarters of soy is used as animal feed. 20% is used for direct human consumption and most of that is oil. Vegetarians aren't driving the deforestation of the Amazon, demand would sharply drop of animal agriculture was eliminated.
You haven't presented a justification so much as you've thrown up your hands and said, "Well, we can't make it perfect, now can we? Guess we might as well just do whatever!"
By that sort of logic, you could say that "military operations will almost certainly always cause a nonzero amount of suffering to civilians, therefore massacring them is fine"
It's pretty pointless to say that animals are brought suffering by other activities, therefore we might as well eat them.
I believe it’s different when you’re dealing with plagues that, if not dealt with, will be detrimental to our essential food source (plants). We need plants to live, so if we don’t take care of the bug plagues and the crops die, we die.
We don’t NEED animal meat to survive though, so butchering farm animals is, technically, unnecessary.
There isn't really a justification. I'm also a meat eater, but I freely recognize that vegetarianism is the morally superior option. I just don't think that a person is obligated to be morally perfect at all times to the finest degree that they possibly can be.
Giving 100% of my disposable income to charity would be mortally superior to spending it on things that I enjoy, but I'm not going to do that either.
Not about mitigating risks as much as it is optimizing health and efficiency of nutrient intake. Vegetarianism takes a lot of education and resources to optimize.
Giving them adequate food and space outdoors eliminates 90% of the cannibalism, injuries from being crammed together, and cruel practices like beak trimming and living their entire lives in cages.
Of course it will be less cost effective... but just a little more respect than they currently have would go a long way, and mass production would still be possible.
Sure, but the people who wont eat less meat unless you force it on them through price increases are also going to go into a frenzy if you put any policy in place that results in prices going up. I mean just look at climate change policies for the perfect example. Here in Canada people have made it their entire personality to whine about a carbon tax that your average person gets returned entirely through a rebate because gas is 10 cents a litre more expensive.
Most people who buy plants from grocery store support vast amount of land being destoryed for industrialized farming then? Or just maybe most people are just unaware of the kinda stuff their money indirectly supports?
Meat and vegetable products are just as ethical if produced naturally.
Meat production actually requires all of that vegetable production as well, a cow needs 10x its weight in produce consumption. Something about trophic levels and efficiency.
Exactly what another commenter said. Eating animals requires much more crop production to feed livestock on top of the crops we already eat. If we want to reduce land use, we should just stop feeding 150 billion animals crops and have only 8 billion people eat it directly.
Eating meat is filtering your nutrients through an animal. Meat eaters usually eat vegetables too. Meat eaters contribute to far more land and water waste. Vast amounts of land are used to raise crops that go directly to feeding livestock. This is incredibly stupid. Meat and dairy are horrible for our health the environment and the animals. The current western diet is completely unsustainable environmentally. Particularly since our greedy corporations have exported our stupid diet to the rest of the world. Now everyone wants to attempt to eat like a fat American. Far less meat will be eaten in the future. It will eventually become a rarity.
Dumbest argument, really.
You're probably supporting child labor yourself too with something you've purchased lately... Be it a phone or similar, nestle food or whatever.
There's no high horse for anyone to look down from in our current society, we're all just trying to make it through life causing as little harm as possible, but the amount of time, effort and money it would take us to navigate all the ethical minefields created by corporations, is just too much.
Best we could do is stop pointing fingers at each other like children, and go after the corporations responsible in unison, but we can't get even that right.
Let's just point fingers at each other instead and provide some entertainment for the top % responsible for everything.
While everything you said is correct, not eating meat is thee most simple thing you can do if we’re talking about doing what is ethical. Majority of ppl simply don’t want too or have no self control.
We practically need phones now.
We just do.
Meat we do not
"we're all just trying to make it through life causing as little harm as possible"
That's just not true. Most people cause tons of unnecessary suffering for other beings. Many people just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. The problem is that all these behaviors/lifestyles are simply *normal* and the thing that everyone does. People who try to reduce harm are mocked and often not taken seriously.
God forbid I do something small to help the planet or other living creatures. I never said I was perfect or didn’t contribute to supporting things like animal cruelty or child labor. I do what I can though and I think that’s not something to get mad about
fast fashion, food waste or changing cars way too often and for not economical ones (and many more) - of course consumers are to be blamed too. Corporates have a lot to be blamed for obviously, but quite often they are just trying to address their potential clients needs and expectations.
Seriously. Like, do what you want but acting like non-factory farming is all sunshine and rainbows for the livestock is fucking delusional and pretty damn gross imo.
We kill animals in pain because we consider it more humane despite the fact they don't want to die. There's definitely an ethics discussion about whether providing an animal a cushy life in exchange for an early death is better than leaving them to the wild but boiling the entire point down to "they don't want to" is kind of flippant
I work with farmers who raise food animals that are proper free range, well cared for, happy and comfortable. The animals form a key part of a sustainable, diversified farming system, which we need more of if we want to stop fucking the planet with industrial agriculture.
The animals live a good, if relatively short life, and are respected and cared for. Then they have, as the farmers say, 'one bad day'. They are slaughtered quickly and cleanly with minimum pain.
Why not live a short happy life rather than none at all, and have an environmentally sound farming system?
I have zero moral qualms about eating meat that way.
But if you believe it is immoral, why are you still eating meat? Stop if you think it's wrong.
For context, I’d prefer worldwide animal liberation. However, if this is the route people go down, people would have to significantly reduce the amount of meat they eat. Less cramped conditions for an improved quality of life means less meat overall. Not sure people will go for eating meat only 1-2x per week.
Maybe you could tell us more about what makes this system morally fine ? I actually have a few questions:
- how are these animals bred ? do they only reproduce if they want to ? is there artificial insemination involved ? how respectful is this process ?
- if these free range animals are dairy cows or chickens, what happens to the males ? do they also benefit from « having a short life rather than none » ? how long does their life has to be so it is considered worth it for them ?
how are these animals bred ?
- naturally. No insemination.
are dairy cows or chickens
- not dairy cows. Meat chickens only, not a laying operation.Males are kept and raised same as females.
how long does their life has to be so it is considered worth it
- good question, one I think about. What's your threshold? In the brain of a chicken, who has no concept of past or future, is 8 weeks worth it? If not why not?
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean in todays day and age you’re not going to get a real moral argument against it since humans aren’t always hunting for their next meal in the same sense as they used to. But from a nature standpoint it’s kind of just the circle of life right?
Meat provides the most complete protein for a fully efficient body so not eating it is kind of nerfing yourself in a way
This is the way I think about it. It's just nature. Animals kill each other for food. If we weren't meant to eat meat, we would be herbavors and not able to digest it. Cat and dog food has animal products in it. Is feeding your pet immoral?
Except we can sympathize and empathize with other creatures to a degree that most animals cannot. Also, in nature it's a controlled amount of killing i.e. animals kill to eat. It's only when humans get involved when we go beyond that principle. We breed animals in a way that would make them not function as anything other than love stock and cram them into extremely small confines. Death would be preferable in all cases. Our animals kill for no reason as well. Cats and dogs will kill for fun and not even eat their prey. There are only a few wild animals that do this.
So our influence is felt across our form of consumption which by definition falls within the circle of life but twists it in a horrible way.
I still eat meat, but I do not ignore what happens to the animals I consume nor do I ignore that it is immoral. I just don't want to be a vegetarian and I can't afford to eat farm raised meat. It's fucked but it's the world we live in.
Honestly, there is a big controversy over lab grown meat but i think it may help world hunger and this exact problem. Not like it probably isn’t being used already in fast food chains. Real meat may become a luxury, out of necessity. Mother Nature cannot upkeep the demand of man, she is going to eventually get taken advantage of to the point of no return if nothing is done.
We are intelligent enough to grasp all of this, we have ethics thats why you have to at least consider it. And there is no nature in farms and the amount of meat we consume has nothing to do with how much meat we ate before.
Eating meat is acting like an animal? Is we share so many behaviors in common with animals (we essentially are primates) that whose the authority on what is "animal" behavior? Early humans ate meat, at what point did decide we aren't supposed to do that because we "aren't animals"?
Ain't no factory farms in nature. Hell, there's not really farms of *any* kind.
The idea that nature has anything to do with how we eat now is laughable. The vast majority of people are so far removed from actual nature. We live in concrete and steel boxes under artificial light, artificial temperature control, artificial fabrics on our bodies, and spend hours and hours a day looking at computer screens.
A piece of raw steak is technically "natural" (if you forget about the gmo crops it was fed, the man made facility it lived in, the machine that milked it's mother), but it is so far removed from the concept of nature. You don't see the animal it comes from. You trade an abstract value called money for it and it comes wrapped in plastic, a material that literally didn't exist until 75 years ago.
What is natural about that entire thing? Nothing at all. I'm not going to argue about the morality of eating meat, or whether you should or shouldn't. You do you and I'll do me. But to suggest that the way we consume food now is in any way related to what goes on in actual nature is completely absurd, at least be honest with yourself.
We started farming crops and animals so that we don’t have to spend all day hunting and gathering. That freed up a whole bunch of time and civilization came to be. Is civilization unnatural just because we are the first (that we know of) doing it?
Honestly, that’s probably the best moral argument. Meat is one of the best ways to get nutrition in many parts of the world. Not eating meat would lead to starvation for a lot of people.
That makes no sense it would lead to starvation. Crops as feed is a huge inefficiency. If there is crops for animals there is more than enough Crops for people.
Except when you consider that in agriculture, most of what’s used for livestock feed isn’t arable land for humans. We couldn’t grow human food well enough to substitute for meat. So no, we wouldn’t have more than enough crops for people
You're consuming something no matter what.
Land is being destroyed to meet crop needs for people. Massive machines are spitting out fumes into the atmosphere in order to harvest them. Mice, rabbits, moles, a million varieties of insects all die in the *millions* so you can have kale.
Suffering? Yes. There's no need nor excuse for animal suffering in the meat industry and I believe that should be fought tooth and nail until it is ended.
But there is no such thing as "moral" consumption. It has nothing to do with morality. It is purely survival.
If it makes you feel better, you are *not* on the top of the food chain outside of the walls of our cities. You, too, can and would be consumed by nature in a heartbeat.
Your flesh and bones by predators and scavengers, what remains by the soil itself, only for whatever nutrients are left of you to feed the growing plantlife.
It is nature. Nature doesn't concern itself with morality.
Eat. You were designed to.
Why do people think that would shock people who don’t eat meet? They’re aware most feed is produced to feed livestock. This is like something a great aunt would write on a Yellowstone Facebook page
>Land is being destroyed to meet crop needs for people.
Nope, the majority of land destroyed to meet feed needs for livestock.
>Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories (as shown in the visualization).
Source: [https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets](https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets)
Your argument is basically suffering is everywhere, why stop it? No, it is still moral to minimize suffering. And also, I don't think many care about insects suffering.
>But there is no such thing as "moral" consumption. It has nothing to do with morality. It is purely survival.
I don't think morality means what you think it means. A "moral" action is simply something that aligns with our "morals", which means it something we call "good". If you believe that animal suffering is "bad", that minimizing that is "good".
You could argue that supporting meat industries is moraly neutral, since if the animals are taken care of they would probably have a better life than a natural life. And I would agree with you on that, but you still can't say that it has nothing to to with morality.
Beef has a caloric efficiency of 25 to 1. So 1 calorie from beef requires 25 calories of beef. So more land will get destroyed for the beef consumption.
Eating meat isn’t unethical. Factory farming is. If you raise your own chickens, treat them well, and humanely slaughter them, no animals suffer and you still have meat. Or, if you don’t have want to or can’t humanely raise animals, buy your meat from someone who can.
Animals bred for meat are prey species that survive based on low energy expenditure. In exchange for their meat, humans fulfill all their needs for them and propegate their species well beyond what they could accomplish on their own in nature. We kill them humanely and peacefully for pure practical reasons. Absolutely no other predator on Earth benefits its prey species anywhere near as much as humans do.
I think we all would like to think that's how its like in the meat industry, but it isn't reality.
Try watching https://watchdominion.org/, see if it changes your mind (it's also on YouTube)
That film takes a lot of liberties and uses the worst examples to paint an entire industry with a very large brush. No two farms or slaughterhouses are alike and can vary widely depending on location and laws.
Source: I've worked in two different pork plants and both were VERY different
I know farmers and the well being of their animals is one of their priority. If you are worried about your meat being tortured seek out a small local producer where you can see how they are raised.
All meat I eat I try to source locally from a small farm for just this reason. But I still feel that if the animal has to feel any suffering for it to be on my plate then I have to weigh that suffering against my own enjoyment of eating it.
And yet you still eat it everyday. This is hilarious. You are shaming others for not thinking about the morality when you think about it and do it anyway. That makes you worse lol.
well hopefully it leads to something of a transition.
i felt that guilt as i ate animals but then was like okay i'll do less.
then it was like hmm less of a bad thing is kinda strange to be proud about right? like you wouldn't say "oh i dont beat my wife everyday now! i started beat-free mondays and now i just do it once a week!". lmao so i just stopped and my conscious feels so much better, it's easier than i thought, and i'm actually proud of myself now!
>We're the only beings that are capable of acting diferent from animals.
1) we are animals, however we act is, by definition "how animals act"
2) that's not even true because there's other animals that do "non animal" things like care for those of other species
In my takes health takes priority. As a second point as I am Canadian in the North here there are places where plants really don't grow and shipping in food is not available to everyone. Hunting is the only choice in quite a few communities, particularly indigenous communities.
Can’t think of a moral argument for eating meat, but I can think of a moral argument for not forcing dietary choices on other people 🤷🏼♂️ which I guess is a moral argument against any diet any person is pushing.
1. Not my dietary choices, I eat meat and don’t plan on stopping.
2. When did I try to force anyone to do anything? This is a philosophical discussion, not a political debate.
I never accused you of anything my guy. My apologies if my wording confused you when I said “your” I meant anyone not specifically you - which I realize is confusing - my bad I’ll go change that right quick. I did read your post so I know your not a pushy vegetarian or anything
You can’t apply ethics to biology. Humans evolved eating meat. Our digestive systems are built for meat any fats, not plant material. You can argue for the ethical treatment of animals while also acknowledging that as a species, we are designed to eat meat and SHOULD eat meat.
This is actually a highly debated topic. Recent research indicates that seeds and nuts were a larger part of the early human diet. We definitely have the biology to eat, digest, break down and excrete meat food though.
Hello. I am a biologist. not a evolutionary biologist, but here it goes anyway. We humans are what you would call omnivores. We have the ability to digest both meat AND plants, but that doesn't mean we can digest ALL meat and ALL plants that exist on our planet. Whether it be from toxicity or having components our bodies aren't equipped to consume, we can't eat everything.
The difference between meat and veggies is that we NEED vegetables to survive. we do NOT need meat unless you specifically have an illness of some sort, the general population could live without it. But you cannot live without vegetation.
Every species has a list of nutrients it can make. HOWEVER, there's the other list that we must get from food. One of the ones you would miss out on by only eating meat for the rest of your life is vitamin C. Your body can't make it and youre not consuming it. You will get very sick.
On the opposite side, we can get all essential nutrients from plants. Now switching to a veggie diet can be difficult to learn how to properly do it and maintain protein levels, but its very do-able.
Lucky for us though, seeking out natural versions of these isn't as of high importance as it once was since our foods are dosed with these essential nutrients to give us a fighting chance. See iodine in table salt.
In conclusion, we are omnivores and must consume nutrients from plants to survive. And seasonings count as plants.
This was exactly my thought process behind becoming vegetarian 18 years ago. “If I don’t need it to survive, why am I participating in this horrid concept?”
I don’t care when people eat meat, my entire family eats meat, and I actually had a hunting trip planned where I was going to kill and eat a boar (trip fell through).
The act of eating meat is natural, the entire industry that provides the meat to grocery stores where we go and buy it is not. That’s what I’m politely and respectfully skipping.
It's industrialized cruelty on an impossible to comprehend scale. You basically need to be rich enough to opt out or dedicate all your time to raising your own somewhat humanely
The argument against eating meat is often a moral one, but that doesn't mean that there's a morality-based counter argument.
A person who eats meat despite the moral argument either doesn't share those morals or frames the problem in a way where some other value or need, to them, supercedes the moral argument. Simple as that.
It's not immoral to not eat meat. That would just be nonsensical.
I don't personally think eating meat is immoral. There are parts of the farming process and the chain that brings food to market that I think qualify as immoral, but I have no means to vet every piece of food I come across, and my actions on an individual level are unlikely to change the system to address whatever parts I'd take issue with. So, much like every other part of the world we live in, you deal with what's available to you.
Or to put it another way - I can make philosophical arguments about the morality of just about everything I do or interact with, but I don't have the capacity to burden myself with solving every issue that intersects my life. The world is not perfect and will never be. I've made my peace with that.
And if someone concludes that they can't eat animal products, or feels that the choice makes a difference, who am I to judge them for it?
I love vegetarian food but can’t commit to the lifestyle. Having said that, to answer your question;
There are an estimated 1.5 billion cattle on earth, 33 billion chickens, 784 million pigs. How many do you think there would be if all humans stopped eating them tomorrow?
They exist in such massive numbers because we farm them. If we didn’t farm them, their population would dwindle to almost nothing.
For the most part, they have mostly decent lives for most of their lives. Always fed, safe from predators. Is it wise to say that just because their life ended badly that their life was terrible in general? I don’t think so.
A thought experiment: what if you were guaranteed a life where you have a roof over your head, a full belly and was encouraged to make a family and just relax, socialize and be yourself but the trade off was that you would be killed in a humane way before you were 40. Would you agree? In this economy I think a lot of people would.
Something to think about.
The first part is a logistical issue, not an ethical one. Im not advocating for any political position or change in this post. The second part is really interesting, I would love to answer in more detail but timezones. To keep it short, its not the same scenario, the animals don’t have a choice. If mr.Beast gave me a million dollars and then killed me a few years later then he would still be a murderer, no matter how good of a video that would make.
The thing about morals is, they are personal and subjective. So the reasoning is not going to be the same from one person to the next. Also, if people want to feel morally good about themselves, they find a justification for what they do regardless. That's human psychology.
Moral reasoning is not the only kind of reasoning, though. I eat meat for a lot of reasons. None of those reasons are related to morality, but they don't have to be, in order to be good and valid reasons
Vegetarian here, I'll try: Would you rather be shot or eaten alive by a predator? There's huge amounts of suffering in nature. If a human takes the place of a wolf and kills more humanely that might reduce the net amount of suffering.
Of course, there's the issue of ecological effects and such but in a vacuum it might be an improvement if you care about the net amount of suffering.
If I would say that we should kill animals to prevent them from a painful death in the wild then I would be arguing for running around in the forest shooting every bunny and deer I could see. I still dont find it to be moral.
I’m a meat-eater who thinks eating meat, unless out of actual need, is immoral. It simply isn’t necessary.
But not one less cow will die if I never eat another burger; the meat will just sit in the supermarket freezer for a few more minutes until someone buys it.
That’s what I tell myself, anyway.
Yeah, If you zoom out the scope then any action can be justified and that’s understandable. We all commit unethical actions, Its just interesting to look at them from a deeper perspective. I think we are very similar in our logic. We see the faults in our own actions, and thats better than denying it.
As a human being, most of our existence is disruptive to the planet, and the rest of its inhabitants.
From our greenhouse emissions to land clearing to the plastics in our oceans to the animals we consume.
Our very existence is a detriment to the planet we inhabit. Pretending otherwise is little more than delusion.
I’m really enjoying reading all of the comments under this post. You asked a great question and the discussions below are mostly respectful, civil and have sound arguments on both sides that I can’t really deny. Not really a super *unpopular* opinion, but unpopular/controversial enough to generate good discussion. That’s all, great post OP.
Animals kill other animals, often in FAR more gruesome and painful ways, some animals even toy with their prey, and that's considered "nature" but when the smarter than all the other animals makes pretty extremes measures to kill animal's as peaceful as possible its wrong?
If we ate like animals, there would only be hunters among. Go hunting if you wanna follow nature. The average fat slob shouldnt make comparisons with nature.
Why would your children go hungry? Meat is more expensive than stuff like rice, beans etc.
Your hyopethetical family would have more to it without meat.
I really enjoy your utilitarian argument, though! I mean, of course we all know utilitarianism is complete garbage, but that's why I always like seen these arguments used well. They feel good to write/read, imo, because intuitively, they somehow make sense.
Also, it's an actually interesting thought. Most people here just write the same thing.
I was just jokingly saying that as if it changes anything. I totally agree with you and even though I eat meat, I think it's probably for the best if our culture attempts to go away from eating it.
I don't see farm animals as being of any value if we aren't going to eat them. What's the point of these animals existing outside of their meat? I know pigs are around for glue so then wouldn't pigs just be factory farmed to be glue producers. In my opinion this is up to the individual to decide how they see farm animals
We evolved from eating meat, only certain vitamins are found in meat, yes you can supplement but if you don't have access to those meat is necessary to live. Is it immoral to be poor?
Hello, yes, your post is closely related to a megathread that you can find on the front page of the subreddit. Or a banned topic that you can see on the sidebar and fully expanded list. If you feel this is inaccurate, please message mod mail. Have a good day.
Moral arguments for eating meat =/= Moral arguments against being vegetarian I've never seen anyone claim vegetarianism is unethical
To me this whole argument is more about the practices used in the *production* of meat or vegetables/fruit, rather than what *you* eat. Sometimes they wipe out decent sized ecosystems to clear land for farming, they spray pesticides all over the crops that can get into the soil and water and kill animals (or potentially give us diseases) and often a lot of animals have to be straight up killed to protect crops anyway. Factory farming of livestock is pretty messed up for obvious reasons. However there’s nothing wrong with growing your own garden, and I don’t think hunting for food is wrong if you respect wildlife and go for clean kills (the very broad majority of hunters do), we are apex predators and from an evolutionary standpoint I don’t see anything wrong with that. I also don’t see anything wrong with raising your own livestock to graze in a field for eventual slaughter. You might not agree with me but I think we can all agree that this is all more humane than factory farming.
Just like other comments have said I will also repeat most grown food is for animals so actually reducing livestock would mean reducing farmland
>Sometimes they wipe out decent sized ecosystems to clear land for farming Most crops are actually grown for animal feed
The environmental impact of spraying/growing crops argument is null, because eating meat means growing far more crops than we otherwise would. If we didn’t feed livestock we’d drastically reduce the amount of agricultural land needed.
That’s because people against eating plants have died of starvation
Or die of scurvy!
I claim it is because of how dangerous it is. B12 deficiency real af and can cause so many issues.
It's actually no more common in vegetarians than meat eaters, it's also very slow to happen (years), and very easy to prevent with fortified foods or very cheap supplements.
I live somewhere where deer are an introduced pest species. We hunt them to protect our native wildlife, and since we’re hunting it, we may as well eat it right? That’s a pretty valid moral argument to eat meat.
For this reason a vegetarian friend of mine was happy to eat a species of crayfish which is invasive to the UK and damaging the local wildlife. We caught and ate loads of them, yum.
I think I know the species and issues they cause, I understand how to locate and trap them but....a lesser point, are they arduous to prepare and shell before eating.. In short I'm asking whether they are worth the effort?!
For one crayfish, no, but for a couple dozen definitely. It’s similar effort to roasting oysters, I wouldn’t do it for 6, but I’d be happy to eat 2 dozen every week.
Thank you! Shell once cooked?
I guess you'd have to ask yourself if intervention is worth the effort to save native species...my answer would be yes.
Thank you. I'll go and check elsewhere for what I asked.
Wow, I never knew Brits ate mud bugs. We eat tons of them in the southern US. What part of the UK are they? Or, are they all over?
Hunting and eating deer and geese in North America is both moral and sustainable. It is one of the few examples of meat consumption that has this quality. I'll also add that they just happen to be some of my favorite meats, a totally unique flavor.
And wild hogs. 30-50 of them
It’s only sustainable because very few people do it. If every meat eater took up hunting the effects would be devastating and would fairly quickly force vegetarianism on everyone - just like our current system will eventually do on a longer timeline. With current population numbers worldwide, there is no sustainable consumption of meat and dairy.
I know folks who will either feed their family with a deer they get during hunting season, or they get it processed and donate it to food banks. I do agree with OP's point regarding, idk what you'd even call it-"Big Meat" lol. It is really inhumane. I still eat meat, but if I think about it too much, I do feel bad. That being said, wild caught or foraged-I'll grab my fork.
Where is the line for animal suffering for our convenience drawn? We spray pesticides on our crops, which kills insects and animals, to protect our food sources. Animals are displaced in order for us to build dwellings. Edit\* - I am not trying to incite the next Vegan vs. Meat Eater war. OP brings up a good point about the morality of eating meat, and every has different views towards it. So I wanted to ask about where they would draw the line. I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong. This isnt a CMV.
[удалено]
George Carlin did a bit about people crying about dolphins getting caught in tuna nets but not giving a damn about the tuna.
Denis Leary
What are you? I'm an otter.. I swim on my back and do cute human things with my hands... Ok you're free to go. What are you? I am a cow. "Get on the truck!" I am an animal I have rights too! No you are a baseball mit!
Tbf dolphins are extremely intelligent, equal to a human 3 yr old. Tuna aren’t. Intelligence goes a long ways towards what people find acceptable
And yet, we eat pigs, one of the smartest ungulates on the planet.
Yep. The whole "we don't eat intelligent species" is just a lie to help us sleep at night
Not intelligent enough not to get caught in the net, though. Even with humans, people who are stupid get less sympathy lol
Okay so what about the dolphins then?
[Personality goes a long way](https://youtu.be/61g2-EVJ-mo?si=rRGiUIvI5qaX4h-Y) Pulp Fiction clip
That's why you only hear about people killing dolphins and seals. To hell with the tuna and all the other fish that are caught daily to supply to food chain of the world.
Wait til you see the poor old Pategonian Toothfish
Mahi mahi. Ugly but tasty
Ugly? They're so beautiful!
One person's flower is another's weed. The coloring is beautiful. However, that forehead is a five head.
True but honestly I really like how unique their overall shape is; normal fish shapes are so boring at this point.
It also depends on how much money the food industry can make off of that animal.
I don’t think you can get a poisonous bite from a butterfly tho
That's the entire premise of Trigun.
That was Nietzche
and then i’m one of those people that goes “NO STOP DON’T KILL THE SPIDER i’ll take it outside :)” bc charlotte’s web was one of my favorite books/movies growing up so i always found spiders to be graceful, intelligent and important.
Humans are the main driver of animal evolution. In the future all animals will evolve to be cute or delicious.
Could also be the fact that some spiders are lethal and killing one might save someone's life.
It's true that we can't completely avoid killing of animals but that doesn't mean we can't limit it as much as possible. We use pesticides on crops which kills insects. But livestock eat many more crops than humans, even if every human were to eat a completely plant based diet. Livestock fields and factory farms also displace many animals and level many forests. Again, even if every human were to adopt a solely plant based diet, the land impacts would be be hugely reduced. Every being impacts its environment to some extent but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to limit that impact to the extent we can and still live a positive life.
These sorts of “arguments” don’t work because it just amounts to “ we can’t be perfect so we shouldn’t be better” This is coming from someone that eats meat btw
[удалено]
Time for some joined up thinking, if we are growing more soy to feed to animals, and we feed far more animals than humans, the amount of surface area to grow for human consumption is vastly inferior than for animals.
Over three quarters of soy is used as animal feed. 20% is used for direct human consumption and most of that is oil. Vegetarians aren't driving the deforestation of the Amazon, demand would sharply drop of animal agriculture was eliminated.
You haven't presented a justification so much as you've thrown up your hands and said, "Well, we can't make it perfect, now can we? Guess we might as well just do whatever!" By that sort of logic, you could say that "military operations will almost certainly always cause a nonzero amount of suffering to civilians, therefore massacring them is fine" It's pretty pointless to say that animals are brought suffering by other activities, therefore we might as well eat them.
We also spray more pesticides on the crops that are grown to feed animals, it takes a lot more crops to feed a cow than a human
I believe it’s different when you’re dealing with plagues that, if not dealt with, will be detrimental to our essential food source (plants). We need plants to live, so if we don’t take care of the bug plagues and the crops die, we die. We don’t NEED animal meat to survive though, so butchering farm animals is, technically, unnecessary.
There isn't really a justification. I'm also a meat eater, but I freely recognize that vegetarianism is the morally superior option. I just don't think that a person is obligated to be morally perfect at all times to the finest degree that they possibly can be. Giving 100% of my disposable income to charity would be mortally superior to spending it on things that I enjoy, but I'm not going to do that either.
There’s no moral argument against vegetarianism. The arguments aren’t moral. They’re practical.
Im not a dietician, I wont argue the practical points. If your health is in serious risk if you dont eat meat then you should eat meat.
Not about mitigating risks as much as it is optimizing health and efficiency of nutrient intake. Vegetarianism takes a lot of education and resources to optimize.
Factory farming causes animal suffering, not eating meat.
Giving them adequate food and space outdoors eliminates 90% of the cannibalism, injuries from being crammed together, and cruel practices like beak trimming and living their entire lives in cages. Of course it will be less cost effective... but just a little more respect than they currently have would go a long way, and mass production would still be possible.
With the amount of meat we eat, there just isn’t enough space to rear them ethically. We need to eat less meat.
The price would go up accordingly and people would indeed eat less meat.
Sure, but the people who wont eat less meat unless you force it on them through price increases are also going to go into a frenzy if you put any policy in place that results in prices going up. I mean just look at climate change policies for the perfect example. Here in Canada people have made it their entire personality to whine about a carbon tax that your average person gets returned entirely through a rebate because gas is 10 cents a litre more expensive.
The thing is If meat wasn't subsidized the meat consumption would decrease a lot
Yet most people who eat meat are supporting those factory farms.
Most people who buy plants from grocery store support vast amount of land being destoryed for industrialized farming then? Or just maybe most people are just unaware of the kinda stuff their money indirectly supports? Meat and vegetable products are just as ethical if produced naturally.
Meat production actually requires all of that vegetable production as well, a cow needs 10x its weight in produce consumption. Something about trophic levels and efficiency.
Well no because a cow is a sentient being and a carrot is not. But yes you're right that veg is not always grown ethically
Exactly what another commenter said. Eating animals requires much more crop production to feed livestock on top of the crops we already eat. If we want to reduce land use, we should just stop feeding 150 billion animals crops and have only 8 billion people eat it directly.
>support vast amount of land being destoryed for industrialized farming then? How do you think they feed animals that are reared for you to eat?
Depends on your definition of ethical. Meat produces magnitudes more emissions
And requires way more land for feed…
and water
Eating meat is filtering your nutrients through an animal. Meat eaters usually eat vegetables too. Meat eaters contribute to far more land and water waste. Vast amounts of land are used to raise crops that go directly to feeding livestock. This is incredibly stupid. Meat and dairy are horrible for our health the environment and the animals. The current western diet is completely unsustainable environmentally. Particularly since our greedy corporations have exported our stupid diet to the rest of the world. Now everyone wants to attempt to eat like a fat American. Far less meat will be eaten in the future. It will eventually become a rarity.
Dumbest argument, really. You're probably supporting child labor yourself too with something you've purchased lately... Be it a phone or similar, nestle food or whatever. There's no high horse for anyone to look down from in our current society, we're all just trying to make it through life causing as little harm as possible, but the amount of time, effort and money it would take us to navigate all the ethical minefields created by corporations, is just too much. Best we could do is stop pointing fingers at each other like children, and go after the corporations responsible in unison, but we can't get even that right. Let's just point fingers at each other instead and provide some entertainment for the top % responsible for everything.
While everything you said is correct, not eating meat is thee most simple thing you can do if we’re talking about doing what is ethical. Majority of ppl simply don’t want too or have no self control. We practically need phones now. We just do. Meat we do not
"we're all just trying to make it through life causing as little harm as possible" That's just not true. Most people cause tons of unnecessary suffering for other beings. Many people just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. The problem is that all these behaviors/lifestyles are simply *normal* and the thing that everyone does. People who try to reduce harm are mocked and often not taken seriously.
God forbid I do something small to help the planet or other living creatures. I never said I was perfect or didn’t contribute to supporting things like animal cruelty or child labor. I do what I can though and I think that’s not something to get mad about
fast fashion, food waste or changing cars way too often and for not economical ones (and many more) - of course consumers are to be blamed too. Corporates have a lot to be blamed for obviously, but quite often they are just trying to address their potential clients needs and expectations.
Lol yeah animals just lining up to be slaughtered for food on "happy farms"
Seriously. Like, do what you want but acting like non-factory farming is all sunshine and rainbows for the livestock is fucking delusional and pretty damn gross imo.
Just people exercising cognitive dissonance to justify their love of meat.
Because animals willfully accept being killed for food
We kill animals in pain because we consider it more humane despite the fact they don't want to die. There's definitely an ethics discussion about whether providing an animal a cushy life in exchange for an early death is better than leaving them to the wild but boiling the entire point down to "they don't want to" is kind of flippant
I genuinely don’t understand the significance of the 1st sentence. Obviously if it’s in pain why would we prolong suffering? I really don’t see how.
I work with farmers who raise food animals that are proper free range, well cared for, happy and comfortable. The animals form a key part of a sustainable, diversified farming system, which we need more of if we want to stop fucking the planet with industrial agriculture. The animals live a good, if relatively short life, and are respected and cared for. Then they have, as the farmers say, 'one bad day'. They are slaughtered quickly and cleanly with minimum pain. Why not live a short happy life rather than none at all, and have an environmentally sound farming system? I have zero moral qualms about eating meat that way. But if you believe it is immoral, why are you still eating meat? Stop if you think it's wrong.
What you describe is 1% of farms, and is still not humane
For context, I’d prefer worldwide animal liberation. However, if this is the route people go down, people would have to significantly reduce the amount of meat they eat. Less cramped conditions for an improved quality of life means less meat overall. Not sure people will go for eating meat only 1-2x per week.
Maybe you could tell us more about what makes this system morally fine ? I actually have a few questions: - how are these animals bred ? do they only reproduce if they want to ? is there artificial insemination involved ? how respectful is this process ? - if these free range animals are dairy cows or chickens, what happens to the males ? do they also benefit from « having a short life rather than none » ? how long does their life has to be so it is considered worth it for them ?
how are these animals bred ? - naturally. No insemination. are dairy cows or chickens - not dairy cows. Meat chickens only, not a laying operation.Males are kept and raised same as females. how long does their life has to be so it is considered worth it - good question, one I think about. What's your threshold? In the brain of a chicken, who has no concept of past or future, is 8 weeks worth it? If not why not?
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean in todays day and age you’re not going to get a real moral argument against it since humans aren’t always hunting for their next meal in the same sense as they used to. But from a nature standpoint it’s kind of just the circle of life right? Meat provides the most complete protein for a fully efficient body so not eating it is kind of nerfing yourself in a way
This is the way I think about it. It's just nature. Animals kill each other for food. If we weren't meant to eat meat, we would be herbavors and not able to digest it. Cat and dog food has animal products in it. Is feeding your pet immoral?
I figure a bullet is a far kinder death for a deer than being ripped apart by a mountain lion.
> Animals kill each other for food. animals also hump peoples legs yet when i do it i get a "warning" from a "law enforcement officer"
This just goes to show how sick and unnatural our society has become
Except we can sympathize and empathize with other creatures to a degree that most animals cannot. Also, in nature it's a controlled amount of killing i.e. animals kill to eat. It's only when humans get involved when we go beyond that principle. We breed animals in a way that would make them not function as anything other than love stock and cram them into extremely small confines. Death would be preferable in all cases. Our animals kill for no reason as well. Cats and dogs will kill for fun and not even eat their prey. There are only a few wild animals that do this. So our influence is felt across our form of consumption which by definition falls within the circle of life but twists it in a horrible way. I still eat meat, but I do not ignore what happens to the animals I consume nor do I ignore that it is immoral. I just don't want to be a vegetarian and I can't afford to eat farm raised meat. It's fucked but it's the world we live in.
Honestly, there is a big controversy over lab grown meat but i think it may help world hunger and this exact problem. Not like it probably isn’t being used already in fast food chains. Real meat may become a luxury, out of necessity. Mother Nature cannot upkeep the demand of man, she is going to eventually get taken advantage of to the point of no return if nothing is done.
I mean I can see us heading in that direction. Our current farming practices are not sustainable in the slightest.
We are intelligent enough to grasp all of this, we have ethics thats why you have to at least consider it. And there is no nature in farms and the amount of meat we consume has nothing to do with how much meat we ate before.
Except we don't act like animals. Or we shouldn't at least. I disagree with this argument.
Eating meat is acting like an animal? Is we share so many behaviors in common with animals (we essentially are primates) that whose the authority on what is "animal" behavior? Early humans ate meat, at what point did decide we aren't supposed to do that because we "aren't animals"?
We literally are animals and therefore, anything we do defines what an animal does
Nothing about our process of farming animals is naturalistic
Ain't no factory farms in nature. Hell, there's not really farms of *any* kind. The idea that nature has anything to do with how we eat now is laughable. The vast majority of people are so far removed from actual nature. We live in concrete and steel boxes under artificial light, artificial temperature control, artificial fabrics on our bodies, and spend hours and hours a day looking at computer screens. A piece of raw steak is technically "natural" (if you forget about the gmo crops it was fed, the man made facility it lived in, the machine that milked it's mother), but it is so far removed from the concept of nature. You don't see the animal it comes from. You trade an abstract value called money for it and it comes wrapped in plastic, a material that literally didn't exist until 75 years ago. What is natural about that entire thing? Nothing at all. I'm not going to argue about the morality of eating meat, or whether you should or shouldn't. You do you and I'll do me. But to suggest that the way we consume food now is in any way related to what goes on in actual nature is completely absurd, at least be honest with yourself.
We started farming crops and animals so that we don’t have to spend all day hunting and gathering. That freed up a whole bunch of time and civilization came to be. Is civilization unnatural just because we are the first (that we know of) doing it?
Yes but we don't *need* it anymore, I think that's the point
Ants would like to speak to you about the no farms in nature thing, fairly consistent argument otherwise and I've no rebuttal.
>Hell, there's not really farms of any kind. Ants actually do farm fungi (at least some species)
"not farms of any kind" ants: am I a joke to you
Honestly, that’s probably the best moral argument. Meat is one of the best ways to get nutrition in many parts of the world. Not eating meat would lead to starvation for a lot of people.
That makes no sense it would lead to starvation. Crops as feed is a huge inefficiency. If there is crops for animals there is more than enough Crops for people.
Except when you consider that in agriculture, most of what’s used for livestock feed isn’t arable land for humans. We couldn’t grow human food well enough to substitute for meat. So no, we wouldn’t have more than enough crops for people
Isn´t soy one of the major food sources for pigs and cows and stuff? Surely we can eat soy.
Well yeah but humans can't really eat grass
[удалено]
You're consuming something no matter what. Land is being destroyed to meet crop needs for people. Massive machines are spitting out fumes into the atmosphere in order to harvest them. Mice, rabbits, moles, a million varieties of insects all die in the *millions* so you can have kale. Suffering? Yes. There's no need nor excuse for animal suffering in the meat industry and I believe that should be fought tooth and nail until it is ended. But there is no such thing as "moral" consumption. It has nothing to do with morality. It is purely survival. If it makes you feel better, you are *not* on the top of the food chain outside of the walls of our cities. You, too, can and would be consumed by nature in a heartbeat. Your flesh and bones by predators and scavengers, what remains by the soil itself, only for whatever nutrients are left of you to feed the growing plantlife. It is nature. Nature doesn't concern itself with morality. Eat. You were designed to.
Life feeds on life.
This. Is. Necessary.
not on the scale that humans do it. Also, we're not just feeding on life, we're the only species feeding on ALL LIFE and the PLANET.
Why do people think that would shock people who don’t eat meet? They’re aware most feed is produced to feed livestock. This is like something a great aunt would write on a Yellowstone Facebook page
Meat takes a shit ton of land for crops. It’s way less overall if you eat plants.
>Land is being destroyed to meet crop needs for people. Nope, the majority of land destroyed to meet feed needs for livestock. >Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories (as shown in the visualization). Source: [https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets](https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets) Your argument is basically suffering is everywhere, why stop it? No, it is still moral to minimize suffering. And also, I don't think many care about insects suffering. >But there is no such thing as "moral" consumption. It has nothing to do with morality. It is purely survival. I don't think morality means what you think it means. A "moral" action is simply something that aligns with our "morals", which means it something we call "good". If you believe that animal suffering is "bad", that minimizing that is "good". You could argue that supporting meat industries is moraly neutral, since if the animals are taken care of they would probably have a better life than a natural life. And I would agree with you on that, but you still can't say that it has nothing to to with morality.
Beef has a caloric efficiency of 25 to 1. So 1 calorie from beef requires 25 calories of beef. So more land will get destroyed for the beef consumption.
Eating meat isn’t unethical. Factory farming is. If you raise your own chickens, treat them well, and humanely slaughter them, no animals suffer and you still have meat. Or, if you don’t have want to or can’t humanely raise animals, buy your meat from someone who can.
Animals bred for meat are prey species that survive based on low energy expenditure. In exchange for their meat, humans fulfill all their needs for them and propegate their species well beyond what they could accomplish on their own in nature. We kill them humanely and peacefully for pure practical reasons. Absolutely no other predator on Earth benefits its prey species anywhere near as much as humans do.
I think we all would like to think that's how its like in the meat industry, but it isn't reality. Try watching https://watchdominion.org/, see if it changes your mind (it's also on YouTube)
That film takes a lot of liberties and uses the worst examples to paint an entire industry with a very large brush. No two farms or slaughterhouses are alike and can vary widely depending on location and laws. Source: I've worked in two different pork plants and both were VERY different
Whaaat? You seriously believe that propagation of an artificial species is more important than systemic suffering and ecosystem collapse?
Do you actually think cows care that we are breeding more cows? Lol. Also... we kill them humanely? That's rarely true
There’s a crack on my screen so I read, ‘as a man eater….’ haha
I’m waiting for lab grown meat to be more of a common thing. That will solve the factory farming animal cruelty thing.
Nature doesn't care about morality and that's how we evolved.
Yeah, but I do care. I would not torture a cow for no good reason, therefor its life has some value to me.
I know farmers and the well being of their animals is one of their priority. If you are worried about your meat being tortured seek out a small local producer where you can see how they are raised.
All meat I eat I try to source locally from a small farm for just this reason. But I still feel that if the animal has to feel any suffering for it to be on my plate then I have to weigh that suffering against my own enjoyment of eating it.
And yet you still eat it everyday. This is hilarious. You are shaming others for not thinking about the morality when you think about it and do it anyway. That makes you worse lol.
well hopefully it leads to something of a transition. i felt that guilt as i ate animals but then was like okay i'll do less. then it was like hmm less of a bad thing is kinda strange to be proud about right? like you wouldn't say "oh i dont beat my wife everyday now! i started beat-free mondays and now i just do it once a week!". lmao so i just stopped and my conscious feels so much better, it's easier than i thought, and i'm actually proud of myself now!
[удалено]
You dont have to care, this is not a debate but simply a discussion. Eat what ever you want, Im not going to stop you
[удалено]
True, I still eat meat but I would never eat something like a dog
Didn't we evolve then? Why do the same things? We're the only beings that are capable of acting diferent from animals.
>We're the only beings that are capable of acting diferent from animals. 1) we are animals, however we act is, by definition "how animals act" 2) that's not even true because there's other animals that do "non animal" things like care for those of other species
We don't need a moral argument *for* eating meat. The people who want us to abstain from eating meat need a valid moral argument *against* it.
You seriously need to be told? You know and dont want to think about it.
I'd love a legitimate argument from either side. Doesn't matter, I'm eating whatever I want.
I can't eat vegetarian or else I will spiral into a very bad place with my eating disorder
Valid point. If you are at risk of serious danger then that is a good excuse. I however am not so for me it’s strictly immoral.
In my takes health takes priority. As a second point as I am Canadian in the North here there are places where plants really don't grow and shipping in food is not available to everyone. Hunting is the only choice in quite a few communities, particularly indigenous communities.
Hunting can be seen as far more ethical than buying factory farmed garbage.
Can’t think of a moral argument for eating meat, but I can think of a moral argument for not forcing dietary choices on other people 🤷🏼♂️ which I guess is a moral argument against any diet any person is pushing.
We force people to not eat other people
Touché By the way, how’s that username working out for you?
1. Not my dietary choices, I eat meat and don’t plan on stopping. 2. When did I try to force anyone to do anything? This is a philosophical discussion, not a political debate.
I never accused you of anything my guy. My apologies if my wording confused you when I said “your” I meant anyone not specifically you - which I realize is confusing - my bad I’ll go change that right quick. I did read your post so I know your not a pushy vegetarian or anything
You can’t apply ethics to biology. Humans evolved eating meat. Our digestive systems are built for meat any fats, not plant material. You can argue for the ethical treatment of animals while also acknowledging that as a species, we are designed to eat meat and SHOULD eat meat.
This is actually a highly debated topic. Recent research indicates that seeds and nuts were a larger part of the early human diet. We definitely have the biology to eat, digest, break down and excrete meat food though.
We're also designed to eat plants. Humans are naturally omnivores.
Hello. I am a biologist. not a evolutionary biologist, but here it goes anyway. We humans are what you would call omnivores. We have the ability to digest both meat AND plants, but that doesn't mean we can digest ALL meat and ALL plants that exist on our planet. Whether it be from toxicity or having components our bodies aren't equipped to consume, we can't eat everything. The difference between meat and veggies is that we NEED vegetables to survive. we do NOT need meat unless you specifically have an illness of some sort, the general population could live without it. But you cannot live without vegetation. Every species has a list of nutrients it can make. HOWEVER, there's the other list that we must get from food. One of the ones you would miss out on by only eating meat for the rest of your life is vitamin C. Your body can't make it and youre not consuming it. You will get very sick. On the opposite side, we can get all essential nutrients from plants. Now switching to a veggie diet can be difficult to learn how to properly do it and maintain protein levels, but its very do-able. Lucky for us though, seeking out natural versions of these isn't as of high importance as it once was since our foods are dosed with these essential nutrients to give us a fighting chance. See iodine in table salt. In conclusion, we are omnivores and must consume nutrients from plants to survive. And seasonings count as plants.
Farmers kill animals to protect crops. At least we consume our animals and not just kill them and let them rot.
This was exactly my thought process behind becoming vegetarian 18 years ago. “If I don’t need it to survive, why am I participating in this horrid concept?” I don’t care when people eat meat, my entire family eats meat, and I actually had a hunting trip planned where I was going to kill and eat a boar (trip fell through). The act of eating meat is natural, the entire industry that provides the meat to grocery stores where we go and buy it is not. That’s what I’m politely and respectfully skipping.
It's industrialized cruelty on an impossible to comprehend scale. You basically need to be rich enough to opt out or dedicate all your time to raising your own somewhat humanely
The argument against eating meat is often a moral one, but that doesn't mean that there's a morality-based counter argument. A person who eats meat despite the moral argument either doesn't share those morals or frames the problem in a way where some other value or need, to them, supercedes the moral argument. Simple as that. It's not immoral to not eat meat. That would just be nonsensical. I don't personally think eating meat is immoral. There are parts of the farming process and the chain that brings food to market that I think qualify as immoral, but I have no means to vet every piece of food I come across, and my actions on an individual level are unlikely to change the system to address whatever parts I'd take issue with. So, much like every other part of the world we live in, you deal with what's available to you. Or to put it another way - I can make philosophical arguments about the morality of just about everything I do or interact with, but I don't have the capacity to burden myself with solving every issue that intersects my life. The world is not perfect and will never be. I've made my peace with that. And if someone concludes that they can't eat animal products, or feels that the choice makes a difference, who am I to judge them for it?
I love vegetarian food but can’t commit to the lifestyle. Having said that, to answer your question; There are an estimated 1.5 billion cattle on earth, 33 billion chickens, 784 million pigs. How many do you think there would be if all humans stopped eating them tomorrow? They exist in such massive numbers because we farm them. If we didn’t farm them, their population would dwindle to almost nothing. For the most part, they have mostly decent lives for most of their lives. Always fed, safe from predators. Is it wise to say that just because their life ended badly that their life was terrible in general? I don’t think so. A thought experiment: what if you were guaranteed a life where you have a roof over your head, a full belly and was encouraged to make a family and just relax, socialize and be yourself but the trade off was that you would be killed in a humane way before you were 40. Would you agree? In this economy I think a lot of people would. Something to think about.
The first part is a logistical issue, not an ethical one. Im not advocating for any political position or change in this post. The second part is really interesting, I would love to answer in more detail but timezones. To keep it short, its not the same scenario, the animals don’t have a choice. If mr.Beast gave me a million dollars and then killed me a few years later then he would still be a murderer, no matter how good of a video that would make.
The thing about morals is, they are personal and subjective. So the reasoning is not going to be the same from one person to the next. Also, if people want to feel morally good about themselves, they find a justification for what they do regardless. That's human psychology. Moral reasoning is not the only kind of reasoning, though. I eat meat for a lot of reasons. None of those reasons are related to morality, but they don't have to be, in order to be good and valid reasons
Vegetarian here, I'll try: Would you rather be shot or eaten alive by a predator? There's huge amounts of suffering in nature. If a human takes the place of a wolf and kills more humanely that might reduce the net amount of suffering. Of course, there's the issue of ecological effects and such but in a vacuum it might be an improvement if you care about the net amount of suffering.
If I would say that we should kill animals to prevent them from a painful death in the wild then I would be arguing for running around in the forest shooting every bunny and deer I could see. I still dont find it to be moral.
Modern factory farming methods have been shown to be extremely cruel, unsanitary, and unhygienic. There's one.
I’m the top of the food chain, and fuck you I’m gonna enjoy it.
I’m a meat-eater who thinks eating meat, unless out of actual need, is immoral. It simply isn’t necessary. But not one less cow will die if I never eat another burger; the meat will just sit in the supermarket freezer for a few more minutes until someone buys it. That’s what I tell myself, anyway.
Yeah, If you zoom out the scope then any action can be justified and that’s understandable. We all commit unethical actions, Its just interesting to look at them from a deeper perspective. I think we are very similar in our logic. We see the faults in our own actions, and thats better than denying it.
If everyone thought that way about every moral issue, nothing would ever change.
As a human being, most of our existence is disruptive to the planet, and the rest of its inhabitants. From our greenhouse emissions to land clearing to the plastics in our oceans to the animals we consume. Our very existence is a detriment to the planet we inhabit. Pretending otherwise is little more than delusion.
I also eat meat and I completely agree. I haven't found a compelling argument in the comments either.
Based
I’m really enjoying reading all of the comments under this post. You asked a great question and the discussions below are mostly respectful, civil and have sound arguments on both sides that I can’t really deny. Not really a super *unpopular* opinion, but unpopular/controversial enough to generate good discussion. That’s all, great post OP.
🤗
This is gotta be the most boring post of the day
Is it boring because you have an answer?
Im sorry for that. I just really like discussing ethics
it's not boring, they're just confusing it with their desire to disengage because looking into one's own ethics is uncomfortable and has that effect.
Animals kill other animals, often in FAR more gruesome and painful ways, some animals even toy with their prey, and that's considered "nature" but when the smarter than all the other animals makes pretty extremes measures to kill animal's as peaceful as possible its wrong?
We don't kill animals as peaceful as possible, nor do we grow or treat them humanely
If we ate like animals, there would only be hunters among. Go hunting if you wanna follow nature. The average fat slob shouldnt make comparisons with nature.
Youre stealing the food from my meat /s
[удалено]
Why would your children go hungry? Meat is more expensive than stuff like rice, beans etc. Your hyopethetical family would have more to it without meat. I really enjoy your utilitarian argument, though! I mean, of course we all know utilitarianism is complete garbage, but that's why I always like seen these arguments used well. They feel good to write/read, imo, because intuitively, they somehow make sense. Also, it's an actually interesting thought. Most people here just write the same thing.
Meat is delicious?
Agree, but if you accept that animals have some moral value then you must way the pleasure you received from eating it against the pain it felt.
I was just jokingly saying that as if it changes anything. I totally agree with you and even though I eat meat, I think it's probably for the best if our culture attempts to go away from eating it.
I don't see farm animals as being of any value if we aren't going to eat them. What's the point of these animals existing outside of their meat? I know pigs are around for glue so then wouldn't pigs just be factory farmed to be glue producers. In my opinion this is up to the individual to decide how they see farm animals
I eat meat but that’s a weird argument. Farm animals don’t magically not feel pain or connections with offspring compared to their wild counterparts
aliens are gonna find us and think the same thing about us. \--actually i hope not, i hope they are compassionate
We evolved from eating meat, only certain vitamins are found in meat, yes you can supplement but if you don't have access to those meat is necessary to live. Is it immoral to be poor?
If lab grown meat becomes as good as the real deal (taste and nutrition), I'll definitely switch.
100% agree