8 ms·

> Take the whole "meat is murder" slogan. There are, you'll be pleased to hear, many vegans with stronger ethical arguments than "meat is murder". Such as, in

> Take the whole "meat is murder" slogan. There are, you'll be pleased to hear, many vegans with stronger ethical arguments than "meat is murder". Such as, in summary: * unnecessary extreme suffering is unjustifiable. * some non-human animals (notably the ones we eat most of) are as capable of suffering at the physical level as humans are. We shouldn't discount their suffering just because they aren't members of homo sapiens. * factory farms raise most animals in conditions of unnecessary extreme suffering. * therefore, it is ethically wrong to eat those animal products. (This is actually an argument for eating humanely-raised meat instead of veganism, but finding verifiably humanely-raised meat is difficult enough that I'm not sufficiently interested to bother, and there are practical advantages in eating a predictable diet. So I just eat vegan.) By the way, I hate the federally subsidized crop situation too. I wish I could do something substantial about it. It's disingenuous for you to say that vegans are uninformed about health issues or industrial practice or the farm lobby just because they don't "focus" on it; that doesn't match my experience of other vegans at all, and it's obviously untrue that someone can only pay attention to one issue.

Evgeny 16y ago
* unnecessary extreme suffering is unjustifiable.* I'm wondering, what is the vegan's position on eating: fish; oysters/mussels; squid, octopus; crabs etc.
- po 16y ago
  They don't eat those.
- cjbprime 16y ago
  > I'm wondering, what is the vegan's position on eating: fish; oysters/mussels; squid, octopus; crabs etc. It's complicated. The largest problem is that all of these animals are killed either by suffocation after they're removed from the water, or by having their organs explode from decompression sickness. Sure seems to me like the least possible humane way to kill an animal. (I guess I'd go with the organ explosion, if I had to choose.) On the other hand, I think that we should care about animal suffering proportional to how capable of suffering the being we're considering is. Animals without nervous systems are clearly less capable of suffering than, say, mammals, so I don't think it makes sense to be as upset. Anyway, I don't eat any fish. :)
  - philwelch 16y ago
    The largest problem is that all of these animals are killed either by suffocation after they're removed from the water, or by having their organs explode from decompression sickness. I grew up fishing, and that's not necessarily true. You generally try and either kill or stun the fish before they sufficate, largely so the fish doesn't flop around so much. In most cases (average sized salmon, for instance) this is done by bleeding, though often larger fish are clubbed in the head to stun them before bringing them into the boat. For large fish, like bigger halibut, we actually carried a revolver on board so we could shoot them in the head before we brought them on board. This was a safety measure--100 pounds of halibut flopping around is enough force to break your legs. Unfortunately we never caught a fish that big.
- mturmon 16y ago
  If you have time, sit back and read this excellent essay by David Foster Wallace on eating lobster, which examines the issues from a humane, non-dogmatic perspective: http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster?printable=true http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_l... This was the title essay in one of DFW's essay compilations.
- cvg 16y ago
  I can see the issue with animals with brains. However, Oysters/mussels should be separated out of this list as they don't. After watching this Ted video, http://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence.html http://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_... , I think high level plants may be functioning at near the same level as low functioning animals.
scythe 16y ago
> finding verifiably humanely-raised meat is difficult enough that I'm not sufficiently interested to bother, and there are practical advantages in eating a predictable diet. http://slowfood.org/ http://slowfood.org/
lambda 16y ago
It's difficult to find humanely raised meat? I just go to the farmer's market and buy it straight from the farmer who raises grass-fed free range cows. If I would like to verify, I can head to her farm and see how she raises the cows myself. Or I buy fish that are caught in sustainable ways, which have grown in their natural habitat and not subjected to any suffering beyond the catch (which is a necessary part of consuming them). Yes, humanely raised meat (and milk, eggs, other animal products) is more expensive, but it's also tastier, and it feels good know the people who have grown and raised the food you eat. I balance out the extra expense, and impact of raising animals, by eating meat or fish only about 2 or 3 times per week; the rest of the time, I pick vegetarian options. That also makes it easier for me when dining with people; I leave my couple of omnivorous meals for the weekend, so I can have whatever's being served without having to cause extra trouble for my hosts.
- cjbprime 16y ago
  I agree with most of what you said (although fish are never killed humanely, so I'm not up for that), but I don't own a car and I live in a city -- the difficulty involved in heading to a farm to see how their animals are raised is just large enough that I don't think the reward is worth it for me. I don't have any quarrel with someone who finds it an acceptable choice, though.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    You might be surprised how easy it is to get local farm-raised meat delivered or handed off via a local restaurant or purveyor. It's totally worth it.
  - nkurz 16y ago
    Your "never" makes me uneasy. As a fisherman, I've often killed fish as humanely as possible. Many others do the same. And while commercial standards are likely very poor, for certain species great care is taken regarding the quality of the meat with the side effect of relatively humane treatment. For example, tuna are often stunned and pithed using the "Taniguchi Method": http://wwwx.spc.int/coastfish/Fishing/Sashimi_E/Sashimi.pdf http://wwwx.spc.int/coastfish/Fishing/Sashimi_E/Sashimi.pdf
Locke1689 16y ago
So if animals were raised and killed in humane manner would you be more willing to eat meat? This seems to be the most coherent ethical stance. Otherwise you enter into the "like-us conundrum" wherein the value of a living organism is directly proportional to it's similarity to our species.
- cjbprime 16y ago
  > So if animals were raised and killed in humane manner would you be more willing to eat meat? Yes. It seems plausible to me that I'll start eating meat again within a decade or two, once industry practices improve.
  - wiredfool 16y ago
    So, don't buy industry. Buy local, humanely raised and killed animals. e.g., our turkey for thursday was processed today, at a family's small farm here. Our eggs come from the back yard. We've gotten pork from another local person who raises a few pigs on the side. FWIW, poultry seems to be the hardest to source for us, and maybe that's because the margins are so damn slim for the factory birds.
    - gcheong 16y ago
      Humanely killed from whose perspective, ours or the animals'? I'm guessing if we could ask, most animals would prefer to live regardless of how painless their death would be or how enjoyable their lives were up until that point. I eat meat so I don't have a problem with killing animals for consumption, I'm just trying to understand the whole "humane killing" idea.
      - rbranson 16y ago
        This gets into deeply philosophical, unanswerable questions. If we didn't bring them into the world as food, would they have existed in the first place? Is is it better that they existed for a shorter period of time than not at all? Do the animals we eat for food have the capacity of preferences? Due to their brain capacities, is it more humane to eat fish and birds versus pigs and cattle?
ctdonath 16y ago
"finding verifiably humanely-raised meat is difficult" One word: hunt.
- cjbprime 16y ago
  > One word: hunt. I know you're probably expecting me to be outraged or something, but I don't have an ethical issue with someone killing an animal painlessly to eat -- it's a vast improvement from life on a factory farm! One problem is, of course, the painlessly part; I would (and should) feel guilty when, inevitably, I miss my shot and don't manage to kill the animal straight away.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    On average, dying from even an imperfect shot is more humane for the deer than how it would die naturally in the wild (most likely starvation).
xenophanes 16y ago
I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is the core issue which should be addressed, and is not addressed by these statements. I believe suffering is caused by, roughly, difference between one's preferences and reality. But animals do not have preferences (this is controversial. will you agree that if that controversy goes my way, then being a vegan is a mistake?) You haven't even said what you think suffering is. If you just assume it's physical pain ... well that is false. We know it's false because sports players and fetishists often enjoy limited amounts of physical pain, and do not suffer from it.
- cjbprime 16y ago
  > I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is the core issue which should be addressed, and is not addressed by these statements. No, you're decades out of date. It is established fact, on all sides of the animal rights argument, that animals suffer and feel pain. I'd be shocked if you could find a single credible source arguing otherwise at this point. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. If you kick a dog, which you shouldn't, it'll exhibit all the same physiological responses that we do to being kicked; it will be in obvious pain and distress, and measurably so; it might cry, it'll hide, it'll be scared of you in the future. What else is there? > But animals do not have preferences No, that's patently ridiculous. Many adult animals, and most especially other primates, hold long-term preferences and have tested at the cognitive level of young human children (toddlers). Again, why would you possibly expect anything else? > You haven't even said what you think suffering is. There are books upon books written about animal suffering, and I was giving bullet points, so not exhaustively defining my terms is hardly a fair criticism. You could read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Animal_suffering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Animal_suffering
  - huhtenberg 16y ago
    Wait till they discover Plant and Fungus Suffering. That should make things plenty more interesting :)
jfb 16y ago
There is a strong ethical case for not accepting instrumentality in ending another creature's life -- ask a Jain. I'm not sure I buy it, but it has a long and proud tradition. I'm on the fence w/r/t my diet(1), but the animal suffering argument is by far the most compelling, and making the ethical decision to no longer participate in an unethical system is to my mind sufficient, particularly when the ethics are conflicted. (1) http://homonculus.net/posts/personal/2010-10-30-veganism_considered.html http://homonculus.net/posts/personal/2010-10-30-veganism_con...

Evgeny 16y ago

* unnecessary extreme suffering is unjustifiable.* I'm wondering, what is the vegan's position on eating: fish; oysters/mussels; squid, octopus; crabs etc.

po 16y ago
They don't eat those.
cjbprime 16y ago
> I'm wondering, what is the vegan's position on eating: fish; oysters/mussels; squid, octopus; crabs etc. It's complicated. The largest problem is that all of these animals are killed either by suffocation after they're removed from the water, or by having their organs explode from decompression sickness. Sure seems to me like the least possible humane way to kill an animal. (I guess I'd go with the organ explosion, if I had to choose.) On the other hand, I think that we should care about animal suffering proportional to how capable of suffering the being we're considering is. Animals without nervous systems are clearly less capable of suffering than, say, mammals, so I don't think it makes sense to be as upset. Anyway, I don't eat any fish. :)
- philwelch 16y ago
  The largest problem is that all of these animals are killed either by suffocation after they're removed from the water, or by having their organs explode from decompression sickness. I grew up fishing, and that's not necessarily true. You generally try and either kill or stun the fish before they sufficate, largely so the fish doesn't flop around so much. In most cases (average sized salmon, for instance) this is done by bleeding, though often larger fish are clubbed in the head to stun them before bringing them into the boat. For large fish, like bigger halibut, we actually carried a revolver on board so we could shoot them in the head before we brought them on board. This was a safety measure--100 pounds of halibut flopping around is enough force to break your legs. Unfortunately we never caught a fish that big.
mturmon 16y ago
If you have time, sit back and read this excellent essay by David Foster Wallace on eating lobster, which examines the issues from a humane, non-dogmatic perspective: http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster?printable=true http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_l... This was the title essay in one of DFW's essay compilations.
cvg 16y ago
I can see the issue with animals with brains. However, Oysters/mussels should be separated out of this list as they don't. After watching this Ted video, http://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence.html http://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_... , I think high level plants may be functioning at near the same level as low functioning animals.

scythe 16y ago

> finding verifiably humanely-raised meat is difficult enough that I'm not sufficiently interested to bother, and there are practical advantages in eating a predictable diet. http://slowfood.org/ http://slowfood.org/

lambda 16y ago

It's difficult to find humanely raised meat? I just go to the farmer's market and buy it straight from the farmer who raises grass-fed free range cows. If I would like to verify, I can head to her farm and see how she raises the cows myself. Or I buy fish that are caught in sustainable ways, which have grown in their natural habitat and not subjected to any suffering beyond the catch (which is a necessary part of consuming them). Yes, humanely raised meat (and milk, eggs, other animal products) is more expensive, but it's also tastier, and it feels good know the people who have grown and raised the food you eat. I balance out the extra expense, and impact of raising animals, by eating meat or fish only about 2 or 3 times per week; the rest of the time, I pick vegetarian options. That also makes it easier for me when dining with people; I leave my couple of omnivorous meals for the weekend, so I can have whatever's being served without having to cause extra trouble for my hosts.

cjbprime 16y ago
I agree with most of what you said (although fish are never killed humanely, so I'm not up for that), but I don't own a car and I live in a city -- the difficulty involved in heading to a farm to see how their animals are raised is just large enough that I don't think the reward is worth it for me. I don't have any quarrel with someone who finds it an acceptable choice, though.
- tptacek 16y ago
  You might be surprised how easy it is to get local farm-raised meat delivered or handed off via a local restaurant or purveyor. It's totally worth it.
- nkurz 16y ago
  Your "never" makes me uneasy. As a fisherman, I've often killed fish as humanely as possible. Many others do the same. And while commercial standards are likely very poor, for certain species great care is taken regarding the quality of the meat with the side effect of relatively humane treatment. For example, tuna are often stunned and pithed using the "Taniguchi Method": http://wwwx.spc.int/coastfish/Fishing/Sashimi_E/Sashimi.pdf http://wwwx.spc.int/coastfish/Fishing/Sashimi_E/Sashimi.pdf

Locke1689 16y ago

So if animals were raised and killed in humane manner would you be more willing to eat meat? This seems to be the most coherent ethical stance. Otherwise you enter into the "like-us conundrum" wherein the value of a living organism is directly proportional to it's similarity to our species.

cjbprime 16y ago
> So if animals were raised and killed in humane manner would you be more willing to eat meat? Yes. It seems plausible to me that I'll start eating meat again within a decade or two, once industry practices improve.
- wiredfool 16y ago
  So, don't buy industry. Buy local, humanely raised and killed animals. e.g., our turkey for thursday was processed today, at a family's small farm here. Our eggs come from the back yard. We've gotten pork from another local person who raises a few pigs on the side. FWIW, poultry seems to be the hardest to source for us, and maybe that's because the margins are so damn slim for the factory birds.
  - gcheong 16y ago
    Humanely killed from whose perspective, ours or the animals'? I'm guessing if we could ask, most animals would prefer to live regardless of how painless their death would be or how enjoyable their lives were up until that point. I eat meat so I don't have a problem with killing animals for consumption, I'm just trying to understand the whole "humane killing" idea.
    - rbranson 16y ago
      This gets into deeply philosophical, unanswerable questions. If we didn't bring them into the world as food, would they have existed in the first place? Is is it better that they existed for a shorter period of time than not at all? Do the animals we eat for food have the capacity of preferences? Due to their brain capacities, is it more humane to eat fish and birds versus pigs and cattle?

ctdonath 16y ago

"finding verifiably humanely-raised meat is difficult" One word: hunt.

cjbprime 16y ago
> One word: hunt. I know you're probably expecting me to be outraged or something, but I don't have an ethical issue with someone killing an animal painlessly to eat -- it's a vast improvement from life on a factory farm! One problem is, of course, the painlessly part; I would (and should) feel guilty when, inevitably, I miss my shot and don't manage to kill the animal straight away.
- philwelch 16y ago
  On average, dying from even an imperfect shot is more humane for the deer than how it would die naturally in the wild (most likely starvation).

xenophanes 16y ago

I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is the core issue which should be addressed, and is not addressed by these statements. I believe suffering is caused by, roughly, difference between one's preferences and reality. But animals do not have preferences (this is controversial. will you agree that if that controversy goes my way, then being a vegan is a mistake?) You haven't even said what you think suffering is. If you just assume it's physical pain ... well that is false. We know it's false because sports players and fetishists often enjoy limited amounts of physical pain, and do not suffer from it.

cjbprime 16y ago
> I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is the core issue which should be addressed, and is not addressed by these statements. No, you're decades out of date. It is established fact, on all sides of the animal rights argument, that animals suffer and feel pain. I'd be shocked if you could find a single credible source arguing otherwise at this point. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. If you kick a dog, which you shouldn't, it'll exhibit all the same physiological responses that we do to being kicked; it will be in obvious pain and distress, and measurably so; it might cry, it'll hide, it'll be scared of you in the future. What else is there? > But animals do not have preferences No, that's patently ridiculous. Many adult animals, and most especially other primates, hold long-term preferences and have tested at the cognitive level of young human children (toddlers). Again, why would you possibly expect anything else? > You haven't even said what you think suffering is. There are books upon books written about animal suffering, and I was giving bullet points, so not exhaustively defining my terms is hardly a fair criticism. You could read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Animal_suffering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Animal_suffering
- huhtenberg 16y ago
  Wait till they discover Plant and Fungus Suffering. That should make things plenty more interesting :)

jfb 16y ago

There is a strong ethical case for not accepting instrumentality in ending another creature's life -- ask a Jain. I'm not sure I buy it, but it has a long and proud tradition. I'm on the fence w/r/t my diet(1), but the animal suffering argument is by far the most compelling, and making the ethical decision to no longer participate in an unethical system is to my mind sufficient, particularly when the ethics are conflicted. (1) http://homonculus.net/posts/personal/2010-10-30-veganism_considered.html http://homonculus.net/posts/personal/2010-10-30-veganism_con...