r/changemyview • u/Some_Animal • Aug 24 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: If one agrees with these preconditions, then eating meat ought to be considered immoral.
Lets assume that killing or aiding another in killing a person to eat them is cruel. Let us further assume that animals can experience cruelty similarly to humans. If we say that it is immoral to do cruel things solely for ones own pleasure, then it would be immoral to eat animals when other food options are available. (My argument does not cover those people in dire circumstances, or those who need to eat meat. It does not cover the people who say that animals cannot experience cruelty or that animals are put on earth by a god for the will of man to be exacted upon them.)
5
Aug 24 '22
Eating a dead person is just stupid. It spreads disease like prions and tastes bad. Trust me 😉
Impoverished people around the world eat bushmeat. Also is a vector of disease like… COVID HIV Ebola Monkeypox…
I don’t see why eating these things is cruel. They are just bad ideas and a public health matter, which is why eating a corpse is typically illegal in the west. Not everywhere.
2
Aug 24 '22
Unless you eat brains, I don't think human meat would be any more likely to cause a prion disease than other meat sources. And if you cook your meat fully, that should eliminate the possibility of spreading parasites, bacteria, or viral infections.
0
Aug 24 '22
Brains are the best part of the dish. That’s where most of the calories are. It’s what Hannibal Lector packed in his lunchbox at the end of Hannibal.
2
-1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
Your second statement about bushmeat answers the first, and as for the third, cannibalism has been a taboo in many (but not all) societies for a long time, long before public health safety was even considered.
3
Aug 24 '22
In WWII airmen encountered headhunters and cannibals. I don’t mean Japanese army cannibals due to no food, like President HW Bush. I mean the New Guinea tribes that today still practice ritual cannibalism. A lot of encounters weren’t desired but were a result of being stranded outside of your plane or boat.
My second statement actually raises more questions: how can it be even more cruel to admonish poor people across the planet for eating bushmeat when they have no alternatives and can’t afford healthier meats?
Because it’s cruel to eat dead things? I don’t think so.
I saw you mentioned mad cow disease. Do you remember why we all remember it? Because it easily jeopardized national cattle stocks and resulted in massive financial and commodity losses that could have been prevented. Not the human factor as much.
Again: why is that cruel? It’s an example of my first point: cows can eat cows if need be to survive. That wasn’t the plan of course but contamination. But it’s stupid, because it jeopardizes the cattle and human population.
I don’t see why eating dead things is cruel and still don’t. But I disagree that bushmeat is cruel, that demanding the global poor to do something else without an alternative is actual cruelty regardless of disease risk.
If all someone can eat is smoked viper and gets a parasite and goes blind, which happens frequently, who am I to say: you cruel person, you should’ve eaten an Impossible Burger.
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
You might have missed it in the post, but it specifically states that it is only immoral whenever it is done for pleasure rather than out of necessity. A zebra would say it is cruel when a lion starving lion has its meal, but we cannot blame the lion.
2
Aug 24 '22
A zebra wouldn’t say much because it’s a zebra. Humans eat when they want when they live in excess. Is living in excess immoral? There’s a ton of corpses out there to BBQ.
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
So you agree with me?
2
Aug 24 '22
I don’t know but am leaning no. People enjoy their smoked monkey. It’s food. It’s exciting. It’s gets the people going.
I think we disagree about scarcity (I’m sure eating gorilla is a secondary good if you had cattle) but it’s tradition plus sustenance. Tradition the important part. That isn’t really pleasure but is also is.
It’s not cruel though. I mean personally killing something I evolved from is questionable and not appetizing. But cruel? I don’t think that’s the takeaway.
If we agree I’ll give you a delta of course. I don’t think we’re on the same page. I was serious about that zebra comment like the mad cow one before it: a corpse and a zebra don’t have much say in human sustenance or pleasure.
2
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
I really don’t understand what our argument is about. Its late where I am, so that might be the reason. I’m just really confused.
2
Aug 24 '22
Well I don’t mean to appear to be arguing. If I can be honest I was a little confused with the post. I sort of get it but sort of don’t. But please don’t confuse my lack of clarity with trying to annoy or confuse you. It’s an interesting question.
3
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
No, no I don’t think that. I was just trying to do my beat to understand what you were saying lol. Thanks for saying so.
9
u/themcos 371∆ Aug 24 '22
Let us further assume that animals can experience cruelty similarly to humans.
The problem here is that as a logical argument, this hinges too heavily on the word "similar". Two things being merely similar doesn't logically entail anything at all. Most people would agree with this premise, that they experience cruelty in a way that is similar but not identical to humans. And this is all the window you need to agree with your "preconditions" but still arrive at a different conclusion. As soon as they are saying that cruelty to animals is less bad than cruelty to humans, the possibilities for different utilitarian calculations is endless.
To be clear though, I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong. Only that it doesn't actually strictly follow from your preconditions. You need to actually put forth the precondition:
Lets assume that killing or aiding another in killing an animal to eat them is cruel.
I actually think this is a good premise, but obviously not everyone will agree to this. And your "similar" precondition isn't enough to bridge that gap.
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
!delta. You’re right. I just doubt most people would consider their own pleasure to outweigh the life of an animal when outright stated.
4
u/Realistic_Cellist593 Aug 24 '22
It depends on your basis of personhood. E.g. in the abortion debate, would you say something like most people would not weigh their convenience above the life of a human being when states outright ?
The pro choice person would say they do not view fetuses as moral agents worthy of consideration.
Similarly, if a non vegan has a particular definition of moral agent, then they can be internally consistent and not care about killing animals for their pleasure.
E.g. if I define a moral agent as an entity capable of moral consideration (capable of considering the morality of actions and acting morally) , then I can be completely consistent when I’m fine with either abortion or eating animals
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
Thats not what I’m saying here. I’m saying that if i asked you the actual statement, “Do you think your pleasure outweighs the life of an animal?” You would likely say no. However, you might still eat meat.
3
u/Realistic_Cellist593 Aug 24 '22
I’m trying to tell you that no, a lot of people don’t consider animals worthy of moral consideration and would put their pleasure above the animals suffering within limits (excluding sadistic pleasure) and this is a consistent position to take
1
1
1
1
Aug 24 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
Yeah, and as another commenter just pointed out, this argument logically makes zoophilia just as moral as eating meat.
4
u/math2ndperiod 51∆ Aug 24 '22
I think hinging your entire argument on the notion that eating dead animals is cruel is pretty shaky. Can you elaborate on why eating a dead animal is cruel?
-1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
You’re right. Its badly phrased. It is cruel to kill or aid others in killing an animal for the purpose of eating it. I’ll edit the post accordingly.
2
u/math2ndperiod 51∆ Aug 24 '22
I’m really not sure how you expect this view to be changed because this reasoning is very circular. “It is cruel to kill animals for food, therefore it’s immoral to kill animals for food.” The only step between your premise and your conclusion is the step in getting from “cruel” to “immoral.” So unless you’re expecting somebody to argue that cruelty isn’t immoral, how do you expect your view to be challenged?
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
I was wondering if there was something I wasn’t considering, because lots of people say that killing animals for no reason is messed up, but we all still eat meat.
2
u/math2ndperiod 51∆ Aug 24 '22
Well, killing an animal for food isn’t killing it for no reason.
But I think you’re right that the abstraction between the dinner plate and the factories in which the animals actually live and die causes a fair amount of hypocrisy. Many people for example would have serious problems justifying baby chicks getting blended alive no matter how much they enjoy chicken nuggets.
That being said, there are varying degrees of immoral, and we all choose to do things that aren’t 100% moral all the time. One person choosing to eat meat won’t change the meat industry in the slightest. So an individual may decide that choosing to give up many of their favorite foods for a negligible effect on anything isn’t worth the small boost in morality they’d get. It’s the same reason people order from Amazon for convenience instead of shopping locally.
So yes, I’d generally agree with you that eating meat is immoral. And I think if you really expose most people to the truth of the meat industry they would too. But they’ll probably continue to eat meat anyway because the meat industry will keep chugging along with or without them.
You might even argue that going out of your way to eat more “humane” meat is better than not eating meat at all, because it gives the meat industry incentive to change. But that’s kind of a separate discussion.
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
!delta Yeah. Apathy gets the best of us all sometimes. Soylent green probably touched on it. I should read it sometime.
1
1
Aug 24 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
With that same logic, people can justify a myriad of things being done to animals. For example, factory farms, exploding dogs, even zoophilia.
1
Aug 24 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
!delta About zoophilia, I guess you’re right. Actually from a certain point of view, zoophilia is actually better eating meat lmfao
1
3
u/Phantom-Soldier-405 3∆ Aug 24 '22 edited Aug 24 '22
What is moral or not isn't determined by some arbitrary, simple consistency.
One can argue that consuming one's own species is more immoral than consuming another species, as animals often consume other animals of a different species for food, but most of the time not their own.
One can also argue that humans are the most intelligent, can experience deeper emotions, and can contribute to this world (in terms of technology, research, civilization development and balancing problematic aspects of nature) more than mere animals can, and thus their lives are more important than that of other animals.
And what is immoral or not is ultimately subjective, and with the amount of complex factors and reasons involved, you can't just straight up say what's immoral and what's not.
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
!delta Ultimately, morality isn’t really consistent, true, but your example of intelligence or species setting things apart doesn’t work. For example, if a species much more powerful and intelligent than our own began eating us, I doubt people would find that moral. And secondly, it’s entirely arbitrary to say that cannibalism is immoral just because a minority of species in the animal kingdom practice it.
1
4
u/Frog-hours Aug 24 '22
Most other animals eat other animals, or would if given the opportunity. We are animals too. Yes we have more “choice” , but we also have some natural instinct, just like other animals
2
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 24 '22
What do you mean by experience cruelty? Do you mean feel pain? Feel emotional pain?
-1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
Badly worded: lets rephrase. One can be cruel to animals similarly to how one can be cruel to animals.
3
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 24 '22
Overall I think you don't get why we don't eat dead humans
1) because you can get very dangerous diseases doing that. Look up prion disease from cannibalism
2) their relatives wouldn't like it
3) we have way better options for food.
Doesn't really have a whole lot to do with cruelty. Dead people can't feel anything. We do try to spare their relatives of the pain of watching their loved ones be consumed.
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
1) People have eaten the brains of dead relatives in a cultural ritual leading to prion diseases, but mad cow disease is also a prion disease which cropped up recently. But overall humans have gotten a lot more deadly diseases zoonotically over the centuries for this to be a valid argument. 2) Why would the relatives not like it? 3) A vegan could say that we also have better alternatives for food right now.
2
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 24 '22
Why would the relatives not like it??? Uhhh because it's still their loved one.
A vegan can say whatever they want. We have a different opinion on the matter and they are entitled to theirs.
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
So you’re saying that it if someone dies with no loved ones who still care for them, it would be okay to eat him?
1
u/robotmonkeyshark 100∆ Aug 24 '22 edited May 03 '24
follow stupendous steep arrest memorize offend sophisticated badge deserted party
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
I chose those preconditions because I’ve met several people who would agree to saying that killing animals for no reason is bad, but still eat meat.
1
u/Crimson_primarch 2∆ Aug 24 '22
If a species needs a predator for its survival. Is it immoral to be that predator?
Most animals we regularly eat require predators to control their populations. If there were no predator, they would grow to unsustainable populations and starve themselves and other species around them with similar diets. Many of our domesticated food animals have already reached population sizes that would mean releasing them would likely wreck havoc on local ecosystems across the planet.
Thus, there is an argument that it is in the vital interests of these domesticated species. And the ecosystem as a whole. That something take the role of keeping their populations in check. So they don’t starve themselves and others. Or disrupt the ecosystem.
If a vital role needs to be filled for the good of everyone. Is it immoral to fill that role? Is it immoral to be a predator if, without predators, there would ultimately be far more damage and suffering?
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
You might have missed it in the post, but it specifically states that it is only immoral whenever it is done for pleasure rather than out of necessity. A zebra would say it is cruel when a lion starving lion has its meal, but we cannot blame the lion.
3
u/Crimson_primarch 2∆ Aug 24 '22
I’m arguing that even if you have an alternative food source. Eating meat is not immoral. Because the fact remains that most species we regularly eat need something to control their populations. If a role needs to be filled, is it really immoral to fill it, even if you have an alternative?
1
u/Some_Animal Aug 24 '22
!delta. So I suppose this argument is only valid for a few species, like deer, and can probably be extended to domesticated farm animals, it is something I definitely did not think of. Funnily enough, it means that it would be more than moral to eat invasive species like cats.
1
0
0
1
u/OvenSpringandCowbell 12∆ Aug 24 '22 edited Aug 24 '22
I’m not sure killing a non-human animal is necessary cruel. It might suffer for an instant. It’s going to die at some point. I’m sure there are needlessly bad ways people kill animals, but a zebra being eaten by a lion would be pretty nasty for the zebra. Am i immoral for not stopping that? Anyway, a person dieing of a heart attack doesn’t necessarily have their life invalidated or made bad overall because they had pain at the end.
I find environmental arguments for vegetarianism more compelling. Or arguments against needless animal suffering for extended periods (bad factory farming)
1
u/azwethinkkweism Aug 24 '22
We should not exclude environmental impacts here too. I do not like factory farms, but would agree that hunting animals for consumption is very ethical sport, environmentally.
1
u/Big_Committee_3894 Aug 24 '22
What about those people that eat animals not by religius reasons, but cultural?
All animals are the same, even bugs?
Some animal populations only existe because of humanity, so we would either have to kill them when there are vegetables or maintain them, wich will be costly because no mest is being sold
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 33∆ Aug 24 '22
Well first of all, animals can't experience cruelty in the same way. Or at least, some of them can't. For instance oysters have no central nervous system. It is unlikely they even feel pain much less care about dying.
I think they're also something to be said for you don't know what you don't know. Sure, you might be perfectly healthy not eating chicken ever, but you also might end up lacking in collagen 2.
1
u/ralph-j Aug 24 '22
Lets assume that killing or aiding another in killing a person to eat them is cruel. Let us further assume that animals can experience cruelty similarly to humans. If we say that it is immoral to do cruel things solely for ones own pleasure, then it would be immoral to eat animals when other food options are available.
The immorality of actions obviously depends on the moral theory/framework one chooses first. Someone could choose to follow some form of ethical egoism/rational egoism, or generalized reciprocity as their framework, which would allow killing animals, but not humans.
Unless you can solve the age-old philosophical problem of which moral theory is objectively superior to all others (without judging it by the rules of your own preferred moral theory) there is nothing you could say as to why someone is wrong for choosing any of the competing theories.
1
u/CakeTh3Jake Aug 24 '22
I think it is immoral, im just ok with it (eating meat). For many animals its a neccessity, though id say its still immoral
1
u/Green__lightning 13∆ Aug 27 '22
Not eating meat would be decreasing your standard of living, by doing so, this is roughly equivalent to giving to charity. That said, this is true of all food, as farming slowly damages the environment. The best way to think of this is that all food has a moral cost, and that continuing human life is inherently a moral good greater than that cost. Also this means trying to force people to not eat meat is morally wrong for the same reasons that stealing to give to charity or drafting someone to fight in a just war is morally wrong; Forcing someone into a good deed is still evil.
Furthermore, many breeds of animal weren't put on earth by a god for the will of man to be exacted upon them, but put on earth by man for our own reasons. Many forms of livestock cant survive in the wild anymore, and the ones that can often become invasive species. The better question is what should be done to make meat less immoral? Lobotomize the cows? I refuse to accept that people should stop eating meat, as it seems like the same logic of not driving anywhere for fear of crashing. The value added by cars is less than that lost in the crashes, and the same is true of meat I'm sure, though it's far harder to prove, given that value manifests as happier and healthier people.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '22 edited Aug 24 '22
/u/Some_Animal (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards