4 ms·
As a non-vegetarian (for now), my standpoint is that I/we should try as hard as possible to ensure that the sourcing of food is sustainable, humane and ethical
by sarreph 11y ago
As a non-vegetarian (for now), my standpoint is that I/we should try as hard as possible to ensure that the sourcing of food is sustainable, humane and ethical for the animals involved. In the usual agricultural animals this is usually straightforward and easy as a consumer — think organically-fed, free-range chickens.
I agree with you that social norms (esp. in your dog/pig example) put irrational values on propensity to use certain animals for meat, when we use intelligence as a deciding factor. But my point was less about intelligence of an animal being the deciding factor of whether or not I eat it, but really about how my grief for that animal intensifies when I find out it has been mistreated, and especially when used in 'delicacy' cooking (my sushi example where the mistreatment of squid can be painful to watch).[0]
There's something inherently saddening in thinking that an animal who has the ability to 'escape' from its tank and slide down a drain pipe back into its habitat could be re-caught and sliced up into little bits in front of tourists. If we know it's that intelligent, then what is going through its mind? — Perhaps we should wait for better AI so we can run a neural net and figure it out! ...But would that be unethical, too?... Uh oh, I'm not going down this rabbit hole tonight. ;)
[0] — NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAqdh_kLbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAqdh_kLbs
- Falling3 11y agoSo, if we're willing to grant that non-human animals are worthy of ethical consideration and accept that we don't need meat to be healthy or happy, how can slaughtering them for food be considered ethical? >In the usual agricultural animals this is usually straightforward and easy as a consumer — think organically-fed, free-range chickens. I'd counter that it's incredibly not straight forward for consumers. In the US (which I'm the most familiar with), organic has no bearing on the treatment of the animal and qualifiers like "free-range" are either loosely defined or undefined with no third-party oversight. Top that off with ubiquitous practices that most people are surprised by (such as chickens reaching slaughter age in just 6 weeks), I think it's incredibly difficult for people to find products that they can confirm and agree with the ethics of.
- peteretep 11y ago> how can slaughtering them > for food be considered > ethical Humane slaughter that they don't see coming ... what's the issue? I would be more, rather than less, comforted to find out that one day I'll suddenly die painlessly, instantly and unawares, and am not too bothered if it's because someone plans to eat me
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Falling3 11y agoEven if that someday is an incredibly small fraction of your natural life? Even as little as 1/100 of what you could live if you were well cared for? I take it that's not what you meant by "one day". If we accept that animals are worthy of moral consideration, then unnecessarily harming them is unequivocally immoral.
- peteretep 11y agoI think if I wasn't going to see it coming, it wouldn't bother me while I was alive, and I'm not the kind of person who believes something will bother me when I'm dead.
- tempestn 11y agoYou're saying that if you knew someone was going to kill you sometime in the near future, as long as you wouldn't see it coming, it wouldn't bother you? I expect you're in the minority on that.
- brian_cloutier 11y agoI believe your parent is arguing for a situation where they doesn't even know it'll be in the near future.
- mitchtbaum 11y ago
- maroonblazer 11y agoIt's hard to escape the fact that, on average, our ethical circle has only expanded and not contracted. That animals should one day be inside this circle seems inevitable. If ventures like Memphis Meats[0] (meat without the animals) get off the ground the whole matter could become a non-issue. [0]http://www.memphismeats.com/ http://www.memphismeats.com/
- coldtea 11y ago>It's hard to escape the fact that, on average, our ethical circle has only expanded and not contracted. That animals should one day be inside this circle seems inevitable. I'd say it has mostly changed with added hypocrisy. The 20th century saw more bloodshed (and from supposedly developed western countries) than any other century in history. And the 21st is off to a good start, sarcastically speaking.
- maroonblazer 11y agoDon't confuse a local maxima with a global minima. On the whole, across centuries, violence is in decline. Pinker wrote an entire book on this[0] [0]http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010 http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0...
- coldtea 11y ago>On the whole, across centuries, violence is in decline. Have to read the book, but is it? Total numbers/percentages wise? I'm not so sold.