3 ms·

I'll take cows as an example as I don't eat pig... If the meat I buy is from someone who mutilated the cow and optimized for maximum pain in the death of the c

I'll take cows as an example as I don't eat pig... If the meat I buy is from someone who mutilated the cow and optimized for maximum pain in the death of the cow then I would not buy that meat. So there is a spectrum here. Just because we kill animals for food does not mean that it's ethical along the rest of the spectrum of harm.

drusepth 8y ago
>If the meat I buy is from someone who mutilated the cow and optimized for maximum pain in the death of the cow then I would not buy that meat. What if more pain directly correlated with better-tasting meat (or some other tangible advantage, like health benefits or medicinal properties)? I think you'd find many, many people who'd be okay with cows inflicted maximum pain for maximum yum meat, let alone meat that made them healthier than the alternative. If there's a spectrum here, an instance of that spectrum exists for each individual too. Is it rational to believe we could ever agree on a single universal line on that spectrum for everyone?
thefounder 8y ago
What if the "mutilated" cow would save your life or just fix a small health issue(i.e backpain)? Would you still accept the procedure? We test on animals so that we don't have to test on us(first). I find using animals for science experiments(even if they are painful) more ethical than killing them for their good taste. If you replace the animals with humans (eating vs experiments) there is no question which one is more wrong.
- tertius 8y ago
  What if the mutilated cow (in the slaughterhouse) could save my life? Cows that are ill treated before they dead actually produce worse meat. So I think it's provable that tortured cow meat is bad for me. Now I know you weren't referring to that. As far as animal experimentation goes, it's pretty much illegal to do torturous experimentation on animals. Getting IRB approval is difficult for anything besides normal life for an animal. Yes you can inject drugs into it etc., but pain to the animal plays a very large role in if you'll be allowed to do it. * My wife is a cancer biologist who maintains and works with mouse models. > If you replace the animals with humans (eating vs experiments) there is no question which one is more wrong. Consent is the only issue here. What you're talking about isn't really ethics, more disgust.

drusepth 8y ago

>If the meat I buy is from someone who mutilated the cow and optimized for maximum pain in the death of the cow then I would not buy that meat. What if more pain directly correlated with better-tasting meat (or some other tangible advantage, like health benefits or medicinal properties)? I think you'd find many, many people who'd be okay with cows inflicted maximum pain for maximum yum meat, let alone meat that made them healthier than the alternative. If there's a spectrum here, an instance of that spectrum exists for each individual too. Is it rational to believe we could ever agree on a single universal line on that spectrum for everyone?

thefounder 8y ago

What if the "mutilated" cow would save your life or just fix a small health issue(i.e backpain)? Would you still accept the procedure? We test on animals so that we don't have to test on us(first). I find using animals for science experiments(even if they are painful) more ethical than killing them for their good taste. If you replace the animals with humans (eating vs experiments) there is no question which one is more wrong.

tertius 8y ago
What if the mutilated cow (in the slaughterhouse) could save my life? Cows that are ill treated before they dead actually produce worse meat. So I think it's provable that tortured cow meat is bad for me. Now I know you weren't referring to that. As far as animal experimentation goes, it's pretty much illegal to do torturous experimentation on animals. Getting IRB approval is difficult for anything besides normal life for an animal. Yes you can inject drugs into it etc., but pain to the animal plays a very large role in if you'll be allowed to do it. * My wife is a cancer biologist who maintains and works with mouse models. > If you replace the animals with humans (eating vs experiments) there is no question which one is more wrong. Consent is the only issue here. What you're talking about isn't really ethics, more disgust.