4 ms·

Just curious: Do you consider killing animals ethically justifiable right now because their flesh tastes good and is hard to replace in cooking?

twiss 3y ago
No, I personally don't, and I'm actually a vegetarian. Though, I think it might've been justifiable in the past when/if it was impossible to replace (though I'm neither a historian nor a dietitian, so that's mostly an assumption), and I think moral values tend to shift fairly slowly over time. But my main point was that they should indeed shift, and perhaps faster (if possible).
- myrmidon 3y ago
  I totally agree with that view... Though I still eat meat myself, which I think is blatantly unethical.
harimau777 3y ago
Personally, I believe that humans are more valuable than animals but that we should do what we can to minimize animal suffering. In order to minimize animal suffering, I mostly eat meat substitutes. However, I end up eating meat a couple of times a week (most notably, I usually eat meat when eating out). For me the stress, effort, and expense associated with never eating meat simply isn't viable. Sometimes the boost to my psychological state associated with eating a treat (e.g. a fast food hamburger) outweighs the suffering involved. I also use animal products such as wool and leather where there are no viable alternatives.
- myrmidon 3y ago
  Do you believe that your enjoyment/convenience makes the meat consumption ethical, or just that your consciousness is less of a pain than eating vegetarian?
  - harimau777 3y ago
    In my case it can mean the difference between whether or not I can get through the day as a functioning adult. I think that outweighs the associated suffering and therefore makes it ethical.
zer00eyz 3y ago
>> Do you consider killing animals ethically justifiable right now because their flesh tastes good and is hard to replace in cooking Eating is a biological process. If the modern world goes away right now, you can survive, but you're going to need B12 and that means eggs milk and meat. I would tend to think that in the absence of technology matters of actual ethics would remain constant. Do you think that because technology makes something possible that you should use it to justify your choice as "ethical", and apply it to others?
- myrmidon 3y ago
  My view on this is this: You either need to farm and kill animals, or you don't. Currently, we absolutely don't, and we arguably never did, because animal products like milk or eggs are nutritionally sufficient and do not require killing the animals. I personally really enjoy meat, but consider eating it unethical.
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    >> need to farm ... milk ... eggs As an aside, Milk and Honey are the few foods that we eat that dont directly involve death. Milk and eggs being available are arguably products of technology, and farming is technology. There are ethical angles. Problematic farming, would drive you to ethical raised. Sustainability, would drive you to eat less. Technology enables you to make the choice of "I don't eat things with eyes". You eat plants, so the line for living things exists somewhere. Your ability to draw that line in an arbitrary (in the face of your biology) place is a product of technology, not a fundamental truth. It makes it hard for me to take "ethical" as an argument for your dietary choice. Ethics is a step on the path to judgement, to rules and I just dont see the argument holding water. (And im a person who eats little meat and could give it up, you can pry the butter out of my cold dead hands).
    - psd1 3y ago
      Dairy implies veal. You can't have milk and butter without either a cull or an expanding herd. There may be a biotech solution, which may bring up new ethical concerns.
kelseyfrog 3y ago
No, I've just resolved that I live an ethically unjustifiable life. It's more honest that way.

twiss 3y ago

No, I personally don't, and I'm actually a vegetarian. Though, I think it might've been justifiable in the past when/if it was impossible to replace (though I'm neither a historian nor a dietitian, so that's mostly an assumption), and I think moral values tend to shift fairly slowly over time. But my main point was that they should indeed shift, and perhaps faster (if possible).

myrmidon 3y ago
I totally agree with that view... Though I still eat meat myself, which I think is blatantly unethical.

harimau777 3y ago

Personally, I believe that humans are more valuable than animals but that we should do what we can to minimize animal suffering. In order to minimize animal suffering, I mostly eat meat substitutes. However, I end up eating meat a couple of times a week (most notably, I usually eat meat when eating out). For me the stress, effort, and expense associated with never eating meat simply isn't viable. Sometimes the boost to my psychological state associated with eating a treat (e.g. a fast food hamburger) outweighs the suffering involved. I also use animal products such as wool and leather where there are no viable alternatives.

myrmidon 3y ago
Do you believe that your enjoyment/convenience makes the meat consumption ethical, or just that your consciousness is less of a pain than eating vegetarian?
- harimau777 3y ago
  In my case it can mean the difference between whether or not I can get through the day as a functioning adult. I think that outweighs the associated suffering and therefore makes it ethical.

zer00eyz 3y ago

>> Do you consider killing animals ethically justifiable right now because their flesh tastes good and is hard to replace in cooking Eating is a biological process. If the modern world goes away right now, you can survive, but you're going to need B12 and that means eggs milk and meat. I would tend to think that in the absence of technology matters of actual ethics would remain constant. Do you think that because technology makes something possible that you should use it to justify your choice as "ethical", and apply it to others?

myrmidon 3y ago
My view on this is this: You either need to farm and kill animals, or you don't. Currently, we absolutely don't, and we arguably never did, because animal products like milk or eggs are nutritionally sufficient and do not require killing the animals. I personally really enjoy meat, but consider eating it unethical.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  >> need to farm ... milk ... eggs As an aside, Milk and Honey are the few foods that we eat that dont directly involve death. Milk and eggs being available are arguably products of technology, and farming is technology. There are ethical angles. Problematic farming, would drive you to ethical raised. Sustainability, would drive you to eat less. Technology enables you to make the choice of "I don't eat things with eyes". You eat plants, so the line for living things exists somewhere. Your ability to draw that line in an arbitrary (in the face of your biology) place is a product of technology, not a fundamental truth. It makes it hard for me to take "ethical" as an argument for your dietary choice. Ethics is a step on the path to judgement, to rules and I just dont see the argument holding water. (And im a person who eats little meat and could give it up, you can pry the butter out of my cold dead hands).
  - psd1 3y ago
    Dairy implies veal. You can't have milk and butter without either a cull or an expanding herd. There may be a biotech solution, which may bring up new ethical concerns.

kelseyfrog 3y ago

No, I've just resolved that I live an ethically unjustifiable life. It's more honest that way.