10 ms·

I think the part that rings clearly in my head is the ethical part. I really cannot believe we eat animals. I know other animals do it all the time -- and I don

I think the part that rings clearly in my head is the ethical part. I really cannot believe we eat animals. I know other animals do it all the time -- and I don't hold it against tigers and lions -- but its still strange to me that we, humans, do it. If you don't feel that strong surprise, then I think the other arguments may or may not work for you. But if you have that sense that it is strange and perhaps off, then this article is heartening.

imtringued 7y ago
Eating animals isn't the problem. The problem is industrial farming. We shouldn't be eating this much meat every single day and as a consequence we have to treat the animals like prisoners and maximize their suffering. 200 years ago there wasn't a huge ethical problem, because back then the animals had more uses than just eating them. They pulled the plow, carried the harvest, etc so there was a reason to treat them well and keep them healthy. Nowadays we don't give a shit.
soperj 7y ago
I feel the same way about vegetables. I know other animals do it all the time, but when you add them up all the plant deaths are horrific.
- rfrey 7y ago
  I believe you are being downvoted because this seems more like a 12 year old’s attempt to be clever than it does a genuine attempt to contribute to the conversation. If you are in fact twelve... well, stop it anyway.
  - soperj 7y ago
    Thanks Rod, I wasn't asking why I was being down-voted though.
- Falling3 7y ago
  If you honestly believe the harming/killing of animals and plants are equivalent, come by my place later. I've got some hedges in my front yard and a dog. I'll get out the hedge clippers and we can demonstrate there's no real difference between cutting parts off of a bush and a mammal.
  - bobby358 7y ago
    All that demonstrates is that mammals can recognize each other’s suffering. It’s entirely possible that when a plant is killed, there is also suffering, but it’s so foreign to us we can’t recognize it.
    - Falling3 7y ago
      Sure, it's _possible_. But we absolutely no evidence that it happens based on what we know (albeit very little) about the subject. And we have good reasons to believe it's not happening: plants lack the brain structures and processing power believed to be required, no evolutionary advantage, lack of motility. Philosophically, it fails as an Appeal to Ignorance. Practically, it fails for a few reasons. Many of the plants we consume don't need to be killed and have evolved to expect and depend on our consumption of them. Additionally, the animals we eat need to eat plants. So anyone with a genuine concern for the suffering of plants would immediately forego the consumption of animal products.
      - bobby358 7y ago
        An appeal to ignorance requires to me make an assertion. Saying something is _possible_ is not an assertion. I concur however, that if one has a genuine concern for plant suffering then only ethical course of action is suicide.
        Falling3 7y ago
        Yes, _asserting_ something is possible is an assertion. And if your only intention was really to just point out the possibility of it and not suggest it as a likely alternative, you're not adding anything to the conversation. But it seemed to pretty clear be the latter.
- moreranchplease 7y ago
  It is, unfortunately the majority of plants die at the hands of livestock. To reduce the needless killing of plants, improve your health and the environment is surprise.... to eat less or no meat.
  - moreranchplease 7y ago
    Livestock don't usually have hands but you get the point.
  - soperj 7y ago
    >unfortunately the majority of plants die at the hands of livestock Exactly, so if we kill the livestock and eat it, then less plants will suffer.
- ribs 7y ago
  Right? At least a cow has a chance to run away. But a carrot - it’s stuck in the ground, no legs, no sensory apparatus. It doesn’t have a chance.
  - buckthundaz 7y ago
    Plants use chemicals as defense. For instance, take caffeine which is a neurotoxin.
  - zentiggr 7y ago
    I know this is going to get downvoted, but... "...these are the cries of the carrots, for tomorrow is the harvest time, and for them, it is the apocalypse!"
- omarhaneef 7y ago
  What is wrong with death? Its not death that is the issue. It is pain and suffering.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    Many biologists are not convinced that other animals experience suffering in the same way that we do. There was recently a thread about whether insects feel pain on HN. This is the result of the special status accorded to humans. One side of it is that we are the only animals capable of moral reasoning and so we should abstain from eating meat even if other animals do it, because we are uniquely placed to understand the harm it causes. The other side of it is that we are justified by being special among all animals to treat animals in the way we do. Both sides of the coin start from the belief that we are not like other animals. This is obviously a very anthropocentric view: we, ourselves, think we're special. Most likely, no other animal does.
- jjtheblunt 7y ago
  Except the consumption of many vegetables/fruits IS the purpose, in order to disperse its seeds, no?
- thedaemon 7y ago
  I'm sorry you have been downvoted for an honest comparison. Plants and animals are all alive. Almost all life sustains itself via consuming other life. This is 100% natural.
technothrasher 7y ago
I don't hold it against tigers and lions I additionally wouldn't hold it against a tiger or lion for eating me. I'd certainly attempt to avoid it, but I won't blame the animal. Animals eat other animals. We're animals. While not eating other animals seems morally virtuous, I don't necessarily see it as a moral imperative simply because we can think about it in a more abstract way than other animals likely can.
- Falling3 7y ago
  That's a Naturalistic Fallacy. You can justify just about any behavior (theft, murder, rape) by the same reasoning that other animals do it.
  - technothrasher 7y ago
    It's only the naturalistic fallacy if I was claiming it is good. I wasn't, I was simply claiming it is what we are, so to claim it is wierd or inherently strange is not valid. The claim that it is "bad" may be correct, but it needs to be supported before there is any reason to change our nature.
  - antisthenes 7y ago
    First of all, it's called Appeal to Nature fallacy, not Naturalistic fallacy. Second, theft, murder and rape aren't necessary for immediate survival. Also, animals don't commit murder in nature, because the target of the murder has to be a human, and it has to be within the context of human law. Same with rape and theft. In the context of nature those actions are just competition for resources. I'm actually not entirely sure what your point was.
    - Falling3 7y ago
      First, the Naturalistic Fallacy is a more specific version of Appeal to Nature focused specifically of moral claims rather than just "goodness". But you knew the point, so I'm sure why you felt the need to attempt a correction. Second, I'll amend my statement to be "theft, rape, and the killing of members of your own species". Murder is a word with many uses, legal and otherwise. But again, my word choice had nothing to do with my point, but you seem intent on getting hung up on pedantry. As for your immediate survival comment, I've never been presented with a situation where my survival depending on eating an animal. Remember - what we're discussing is eating animals, not eating in general. I think you know exactly what my point what but seem quite intent on purposefully missing it.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> I really cannot believe we eat animals I don't understand this. We are animals. Why is it specially prohibited to us that we eat other animals? Note also that, as animals, we are not plant-eaters: we can't survive on plant matter alone. We are made [1] to eat other animals. We are omnivores, yes? So why is it unethical for us, specifically, to eat other animals when it's not unethical for other animals? ____________ [1] By evolution, obviously.
- dao- 7y ago
  > So why is it unethical for us, specifically, to eat other animals when it's not unethical for other animals? You almost answered your own question. "Unethical" is a foreign concept for animals because they don't even have ethics. Humans do, and these ethics have implications for how you should or should not treat other sentient life.
  - Amezarak 7y ago
    'Ethics' are just social norms, otherwise known as 'the herd instinct in the individual.' There is nothing special about human ethics, except the level of abstraction we use to rationalize them. Humans are instinct-driven animals like all the rest.
  - blueadept111 7y ago
    Well if I eat a salmon, then I'm actually saving the lives of all the other other fish that the salmon would have eaten if I hadn't eaten the salmon. So in that case, it's unethical NOT to eat salmon. Oh my, there's just no rest for the weary ethics student.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      This logic doesn't work if you intentionally let it eat the other fish so you can eat the salmon.
  - baddox 7y ago
    The trouble, as ever, is that while humans do seem to have ethics, they also seem to have a lot of disagreements about ethics.

imtringued 7y ago

Eating animals isn't the problem. The problem is industrial farming. We shouldn't be eating this much meat every single day and as a consequence we have to treat the animals like prisoners and maximize their suffering. 200 years ago there wasn't a huge ethical problem, because back then the animals had more uses than just eating them. They pulled the plow, carried the harvest, etc so there was a reason to treat them well and keep them healthy. Nowadays we don't give a shit.

soperj 7y ago

I feel the same way about vegetables. I know other animals do it all the time, but when you add them up all the plant deaths are horrific.

rfrey 7y ago
I believe you are being downvoted because this seems more like a 12 year old’s attempt to be clever than it does a genuine attempt to contribute to the conversation. If you are in fact twelve... well, stop it anyway.
- soperj 7y ago
  Thanks Rod, I wasn't asking why I was being down-voted though.
Falling3 7y ago
If you honestly believe the harming/killing of animals and plants are equivalent, come by my place later. I've got some hedges in my front yard and a dog. I'll get out the hedge clippers and we can demonstrate there's no real difference between cutting parts off of a bush and a mammal.
- bobby358 7y ago
  All that demonstrates is that mammals can recognize each other’s suffering. It’s entirely possible that when a plant is killed, there is also suffering, but it’s so foreign to us we can’t recognize it.
  - Falling3 7y ago
    Sure, it's _possible_. But we absolutely no evidence that it happens based on what we know (albeit very little) about the subject. And we have good reasons to believe it's not happening: plants lack the brain structures and processing power believed to be required, no evolutionary advantage, lack of motility. Philosophically, it fails as an Appeal to Ignorance. Practically, it fails for a few reasons. Many of the plants we consume don't need to be killed and have evolved to expect and depend on our consumption of them. Additionally, the animals we eat need to eat plants. So anyone with a genuine concern for the suffering of plants would immediately forego the consumption of animal products.
    - bobby358 7y ago
      An appeal to ignorance requires to me make an assertion. Saying something is _possible_ is not an assertion. I concur however, that if one has a genuine concern for plant suffering then only ethical course of action is suicide.
      - Falling3 7y ago
        Yes, _asserting_ something is possible is an assertion. And if your only intention was really to just point out the possibility of it and not suggest it as a likely alternative, you're not adding anything to the conversation. But it seemed to pretty clear be the latter.
moreranchplease 7y ago
It is, unfortunately the majority of plants die at the hands of livestock. To reduce the needless killing of plants, improve your health and the environment is surprise.... to eat less or no meat.
- moreranchplease 7y ago
  Livestock don't usually have hands but you get the point.
- soperj 7y ago
  >unfortunately the majority of plants die at the hands of livestock Exactly, so if we kill the livestock and eat it, then less plants will suffer.
ribs 7y ago
Right? At least a cow has a chance to run away. But a carrot - it’s stuck in the ground, no legs, no sensory apparatus. It doesn’t have a chance.
- buckthundaz 7y ago
  Plants use chemicals as defense. For instance, take caffeine which is a neurotoxin.
- zentiggr 7y ago
  I know this is going to get downvoted, but... "...these are the cries of the carrots, for tomorrow is the harvest time, and for them, it is the apocalypse!"
omarhaneef 7y ago
What is wrong with death? Its not death that is the issue. It is pain and suffering.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  Many biologists are not convinced that other animals experience suffering in the same way that we do. There was recently a thread about whether insects feel pain on HN. This is the result of the special status accorded to humans. One side of it is that we are the only animals capable of moral reasoning and so we should abstain from eating meat even if other animals do it, because we are uniquely placed to understand the harm it causes. The other side of it is that we are justified by being special among all animals to treat animals in the way we do. Both sides of the coin start from the belief that we are not like other animals. This is obviously a very anthropocentric view: we, ourselves, think we're special. Most likely, no other animal does.
jjtheblunt 7y ago
Except the consumption of many vegetables/fruits IS the purpose, in order to disperse its seeds, no?
thedaemon 7y ago
I'm sorry you have been downvoted for an honest comparison. Plants and animals are all alive. Almost all life sustains itself via consuming other life. This is 100% natural.

technothrasher 7y ago

I don't hold it against tigers and lions I additionally wouldn't hold it against a tiger or lion for eating me. I'd certainly attempt to avoid it, but I won't blame the animal. Animals eat other animals. We're animals. While not eating other animals seems morally virtuous, I don't necessarily see it as a moral imperative simply because we can think about it in a more abstract way than other animals likely can.

Falling3 7y ago
That's a Naturalistic Fallacy. You can justify just about any behavior (theft, murder, rape) by the same reasoning that other animals do it.
- technothrasher 7y ago
  It's only the naturalistic fallacy if I was claiming it is good. I wasn't, I was simply claiming it is what we are, so to claim it is wierd or inherently strange is not valid. The claim that it is "bad" may be correct, but it needs to be supported before there is any reason to change our nature.
- antisthenes 7y ago
  First of all, it's called Appeal to Nature fallacy, not Naturalistic fallacy. Second, theft, murder and rape aren't necessary for immediate survival. Also, animals don't commit murder in nature, because the target of the murder has to be a human, and it has to be within the context of human law. Same with rape and theft. In the context of nature those actions are just competition for resources. I'm actually not entirely sure what your point was.
  - Falling3 7y ago
    First, the Naturalistic Fallacy is a more specific version of Appeal to Nature focused specifically of moral claims rather than just "goodness". But you knew the point, so I'm sure why you felt the need to attempt a correction. Second, I'll amend my statement to be "theft, rape, and the killing of members of your own species". Murder is a word with many uses, legal and otherwise. But again, my word choice had nothing to do with my point, but you seem intent on getting hung up on pedantry. As for your immediate survival comment, I've never been presented with a situation where my survival depending on eating an animal. Remember - what we're discussing is eating animals, not eating in general. I think you know exactly what my point what but seem quite intent on purposefully missing it.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> I really cannot believe we eat animals I don't understand this. We are animals. Why is it specially prohibited to us that we eat other animals? Note also that, as animals, we are not plant-eaters: we can't survive on plant matter alone. We are made [1] to eat other animals. We are omnivores, yes? So why is it unethical for us, specifically, to eat other animals when it's not unethical for other animals? ____________ [1] By evolution, obviously.

dao- 7y ago
> So why is it unethical for us, specifically, to eat other animals when it's not unethical for other animals? You almost answered your own question. "Unethical" is a foreign concept for animals because they don't even have ethics. Humans do, and these ethics have implications for how you should or should not treat other sentient life.
- Amezarak 7y ago
  'Ethics' are just social norms, otherwise known as 'the herd instinct in the individual.' There is nothing special about human ethics, except the level of abstraction we use to rationalize them. Humans are instinct-driven animals like all the rest.
- blueadept111 7y ago
  Well if I eat a salmon, then I'm actually saving the lives of all the other other fish that the salmon would have eaten if I hadn't eaten the salmon. So in that case, it's unethical NOT to eat salmon. Oh my, there's just no rest for the weary ethics student.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    This logic doesn't work if you intentionally let it eat the other fish so you can eat the salmon.
- baddox 7y ago
  The trouble, as ever, is that while humans do seem to have ethics, they also seem to have a lot of disagreements about ethics.