"The Immorality of Eating Meat"

[redhen]

I came across this essay by the philosophy professor Mylan Engel on the "The Immorality of Eating Meat". Link is here: http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Engel,%20The%20Immorality%20of%20Eating%20Meat%20%282000%29.pdf

It's now included in a textbook on ethics, and I think his argument is valid and sound. I also think that many people also hold these beliefs but eat meat nonetheless. My guess is that they do so out of habit, convenience and taste preferences. People act against their own beliefs all the time, smoking is one example. But smokers have a physical addiction to nicotine. Meat eaters have no such defense, so they all live with some level of cognitive dissonance.

Engel addresses and lays out the modern factory farming methods of producing meat. So I suppose if you found some road kill or an animal who died of natural causes, it would be perfectly moral to eat meat.

Engels prefaces his essay "the argument advanced is not predicated on the wrongness of speciesism, nor does it depend on your believing that all animals are equal or that all animals have a right to life, nor is it predicated on some highly contentious metaethical theory which you reject." He bases it on what he assumes are your own personal beliefs.

Here's a summary of his argument.

P1. Other things being equal, a world with less pain and suffering is better than a world with more pain and suffering.

P2. A world with less unnecessary suffering is better than a world with more unnecessary suffering.

P3. Unnecessary cruelty is wrong and prima facie should not be supported or encouraged.

P4. We ought to take steps to make the world a better place. 4′. We ought to do what we reasonably can to avoid making the world a worse place.

P5. A morally good person will take steps to make the world a better place and even stronger steps to avoid making the world a worse place.

P6. Even a minimally decent person would take steps to help reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the world, if she could do so with very little effort.

P7. I am a morally good person.

P8. I am at least a minimally decent person.

P9. I am the sort of person who certainly would take steps to help reduce the amount of pain and suffering in the world, if I could do so with very little effort.

P10. Many nonhuman animals (certainly all vertebrates) are capable of feeling pain.

P11. It is morally wrong to cause an animal unnecessary pain or suffering.

P12. It is morally wrong and despicable to treat animals inhumanely for no good reason.

P13. We ought to euthanize untreatably injured, suffering animals to put them out of their misery whenever feasible.

P14. Other things being equal, it is worse to kill a conscious sentient animal than it is to kill a plant.

P15. We have a duty to help preserve the environment for future generations (at least for future human generations).

P16. One ought to minimize one’s contribution toward environmental degradation, especially in those ways requiring minimal effort on one’s part.

He answers some objections, i.e. killing animals to consume does not qualify as unnecessary suffering because of dietary requirements. But that's just not on, there are several Olympic vegan athletes.

He also adds that hunting for meat is not necessary in a modern agricultural society, implying by omission that it's morally ok for Inuit and other hunter-gatherer cultures to continue to hunt.

If you have other objections to his argument, I'd like to hear them.

Thanks

[Goodnite]

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Case-Against-Vegetarianism

Here are some likely answers to no meat.

[ohio traveler]

People seem to want to place humans and animals on the same level. They should not. Once you come to the understanding that humans are superior, eating animals isn't that big of a deal.

People let their emotions cloud their judgement. Do they cry when an ant dies ? How about when a fly is swatted ?

But they gush-up in tears for the big cuddly puppies or the cute little furry rabbits.

[redhen]

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Case-Against-Vegetarianism

Here are some likely answers to no meat.

Engel's argument is a moral one, so a lot of those answers don't apply, and a lot are faulty. There's also lots of fallacies there.

6. Use the 'circle of life" argument. When you get down to it, most animals, including humans, are naturally suited for eating other animals. It is clearly possible to have a healthy diet without any meat, but it's often a lot harder.

Naturalistic fallacy; just because some behaviour is natural doesn't mean it's moral. Public sex anyone? Also, archaic hominids were not carnivores thus not "naturally suited for eating other animals".

7. Blow apart the animal rights argument. When a vegetarian claims that you're violating animal rights, remember them that many researches can prove us that plants have some level of awareness of their environments. How can one argue about animal rights without knowing how much does a single plant can feel(or how much is a plant aware of what it feels) at all?

Plants lack any kind of nervous system. They can't feel pain. Next.

8. Point out their use of other animal products. Most vegetarians still use animal products in things like leather, glue, gelatin, and some pharmaceutic capsules. Question their hypocrisy in using some animal products despite claims to the contrary

Right, which is why the author is arguing for veganism not vegetarianism.

9. Be holistic. Argue that human beings are the dominant species on the Planet Earth and that all of the Earth’s resources are at our disposal for our responsible use and enjoyment. Consider where humanity would be if trees were never cut down for their wood to be utilized in everything from the construction of homes and water vessels to the manufacturing of bookshelves and paper. The responsible thing to do is to ensure that future generations are able to be afforded all of the advantages and luxuries that we currently have access to.

WTF? LOL. Yes, what happened to all those tress in the hundreds of millions of years before homo sapiens came along? Dominant species? Might is Right, now there's a good moral code. And how is this answer holistic? LoL

10. Describe the biological case for eating meat. If we were made to eat only plants, wouldn't we have multiple stomachs, like cows? Our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.

Hmm. Tell that to the Giant Panda, a one time carnivore who is now a herbivore. Ain't evolution wild? Anyways, same old naturalistic fallacy.

Again, I'm looking for moral objections. Thanks for a good laugh though.

[Leonardo]

If you have other objections to his argument, I'd like to hear them.

Thanks

A neat idea, redhen. As for arguments, I'll start with the very first point...

P1. Other things being equal, a world with less pain and suffering is better than a world with more pain and suffering.

Define 'better' and for whom? Also, define 'world'.

Certainly the carnivore is 'better' for the pain and suffering of the herbivore, so the argument fails on that materialistic count.

There has been no evidence ever presented which supports that all life on Earth (the 'world') is 'bound' in some metaphysical fashion to witness the pain and suffering of others, so the 'interconnected argument' falls flat on the basis it is not actually an argument, but a belief.

If the initial premise of the argument is unsupported, it does not necessarily invalidate that argument, but it does remove it to the realm of 'thought-experiment' rather than an argument founded in reality.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Leonardo

[little_dreamer]

For me, it depends on human anatomy and nutrition. Have humans evolved to eat meat?

Does it meet their nutrition requirements, or does it interfere with health? There are health differences between eating fatty meats and fish, for example.

I know vegetarians sometimes have vitamin B12 deficiency, for one. This can be overcome with vitamin supplements.

[redhen]

People seem to want to place humans and animals on the same level. They should not. Once you come to the understanding that humans are superior, eating animals isn't that big of a deal.

Superior? How so? Intelligence? Does that mean we can eat my stupid, old, cranky mother-in-law? No? "humans" are all of the same "kind" you say? So I can't eat intellectually underdeveloped humans or infants? Hmm, how about some freshly de-thawed homo erectus ribs? yummy. I'm not sure what you mean by superior, but I don't think whatever it is gives us a moral right to inflict gratuitous pain on animals.

People let their emotions cloud their judgement. Do they cry when an ant dies ? How about when a fly is swatted ?

But they gush-up in tears for the big cuddly puppies or the cute little furry rabbits.

It's not an emotional argument (you should read it), it's a logical, philosophical argument about morality.

[Morgaia]

So should we try to force a tiger to consume only a vegetarian diet? Eating meat is not immoral, it's just a part of nature. Humans may be be able to choose whether to eat meat or not but it's personal choice, enforcing a vegetarian diet on the unwilling isn't exactly 'moral' if we are going to discuss morals.

[H.H. Holmes]

I have a problem with the term unnecessary pain and suffering, whom decides whether something is necessary.

If the cows we eat are killed in a quick, almost painless fashion after living relatively decent lives, then I would say that it would be morally sound to kill them, since suffering is kept at a minimum. If these animals are going to die of old age, anyways, then what harm can be done by eating them?

[little_dreamer]

Cats and dogs are carnivores and have evolved to eat meat, but there is such a thing as vegetarian dog and cat food, invented by humans.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=vegetarian+dog+cat+food

[George Ford]

tl;dr

How did my brother get to Alpha Male size without eating meat ? He tried a diet of nut drinks, nuts, nut food loaf, carbs and fish, BUT it does not contain everything he needed and he lost muscle mass. To be fair to him, he did stop eating red meat all together, and now only eats fish, chicken, turkey and occasionally pork. (and maybe 3 times a year will eat lamb) BUT he now has to take creatine 2 times a day to stay the same size, plus some other supplements. SO using a non red meat diet.. a natural diet for a lot of people.. he has lost strength and has to top it up to try and stay the same size.

Yes, I agree there was no actual need for him to do it, but he was massive. He did not need to chat up lasses in the town, they looked at him and wanted to be with him, plus he's an A-level chemistry teacher so they were even more impressed once they spoke to him... BUT he had and still does have a lass so would not go off with any of them )he loved the attention though. SO maybe it's a male thing?, maybe if you eat more red meat you get 'free' creatine and so bulk up quicker and therefore a women (when young most women go on looks rather then anything else, as they want to have fit offspring with a good provider father)

Maybe be now, where women pick males that are, when you look at them, pathetic, compared to fitter, younger, stronger men. And also the woman herself is not one that would have, back in the day, looked fit, agile and 'lethal' then a hi protein diet is no longer relevant.

I eat meat and I only choose organic and free range meat. I pay up to and over 100% over the regular meat cost, because; if cant take the time to rear and look after and kill an animal myself, or afford to hunt (there is nowhere in England anyone can legally hunt any more apart from fowl I think, and even then you have to pay something like £800 per 2 day pass...) then I will happily pay someone else to make sure they do it to my standard. If I found out they hurt or made the animal uncomfortable then I'd get angry and try get them out of business.

Not only that but I also wear fur, leather and use other animals products, and as long as there was humane treatment throughout the life of the animal then I'm OK with that.

I'm not a bad man, but if push cam to shove and I needed to get food for a starving family or even friends then I would only stop when it came to Human meant.

Anyway you seem capable of judging everyone, and our evolution on this point in time (the last 3000 years is just a blink of the eye) so you tell me my brother is wrong and that I am wrong to.

[redhen]

Define 'better' and for whom? Also, define 'world'.

Certainly the carnivore is 'better' for the pain and suffering of the herbivore, so the argument fails on that materialistic count.

Sorry, maybe I should have emphasized more;

Engels prefaces his essay "the argument advanced is not predicated on the wrongness of speciesism, nor does it depend on your believing that all animals are equal or that all animals have a right to life, nor is it predicated on some highly contentious metaethical theory which you reject." He bases it on what he assumes are your own personal beliefs.

If you believe that a world with more pain and suffering is better than one with less pain and suffering, than I'd like to hear why you hold that belief.

[Beckys_Mom]

People seem to want to place humans and animals on the same level. They should not.

Humans are animals

[Beckys_Mom]

I have a problem with the term unnecessary pain and suffering, whom decides whether something is necessary.

The one who is suffering from the pain... OUCH THAT' S ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!

Edited June 17, 2011 by Beckys_Mom

[George Ford]

Sorry, maybe I should have emphasized more;

Engels prefaces his essay "the argument advanced is not predicated on the wrongness of speciesism, nor does it depend on your believing that all animals are equal or that all animals have a right to life, nor is it predicated on some highly contentious metaethical theory which you reject." He bases it on what he assumes are your own personal beliefs.

If you believe that a world with more pain and suffering is better than one with less pain and suffering, than I'd like to hear why you hold that belief.

Suffering is part of life, or would you see child birth with no pain and suffering to fit this little snap shot of tranquillity you've made up in the la la land your from? Or do we now have a different standards of what suffering is allowed. You seem pretty on the ball about this suffering thing, so you tell me about it?

[redhen]

tl;dr

I eat meat and I only choose organic and free range meat. I pay up to and over 100% over the regular meat cost, because; if cant take the time to rear and look after and kill an animal myself, or afford to hunt (there is nowhere in England anyone can legally hunt any more apart from fowl I think, and even then you have to pay something like £800 per 2 day pass...) then I will happily pay someone else to make sure they do it to my standard. If I found out they hurt or made the animal uncomfortable then I'd get angry and try get them out of business.

This is the cognitive dissonance I mentioned in the OP.

Not only that but I also wear fur, leather and use other animals products, and as long as there was humane treatment throughout the life of the animal then I'm OK with that.

There is no humane treatment in modern meat producing plants.

Anyway you seem capable of judging everyone, and our evolution on this point in time (the last 3000 years is just a blink of the eye) so you tell me my brother is wrong and that I am wrong to.

I'm not judging anyone, I'm just sharing this essay about the implications of your own moral beliefs.

[Damrod]

I'm pretty sure that I'm a good person.

Steak tastes really good and your body needs animal proteins and fats.

I like hamburgers too.

Fish is good for your body and brain.

Philosophical observation fails.

[redhen]

I have a problem with the term unnecessary pain and suffering, whom decides whether something is necessary.

You decide!

If the cows we eat are killed in a quick, almost painless fashion after living relatively decent lives, then I would say that it would be morally sound to kill them, since suffering is kept at a minimum. If these animals are going to die of old age, anyways, then what harm can be done by eating them?

And it would be morally necessary to kill them to eat because .....

Not in a modern agricultural society it is.

[Damrod]

You presume too much. You think because this person or that wants to hug trees and play with the little animals that others have a moral problem with it...I don't.

In fact, if I get hungry enough, I might eat just about whatever I can catch...how fast can you run?

[redhen]

I'm pretty sure that I'm a good person.

Good for you.

Steak tastes really good and your body needs animal proteins and fats.

I like hamburgers too.

So human gastronomic taste trumps gratuitous pain and suffering to other animals?

Would it be morally good for someone to skin a dog alive and eat it? Because it tastes yummy?

Fish is good for your body and brain.

We can get amino acids, omega and fats from non-animal sources. Hence the unnecessary qualifier to pain and suffering.

[Ealdwita]

If animals aren't meant to be eaten, why are they made of MEAT?

[Leonardo]

Sorry, maybe I should have emphasized more;

Engels prefaces his essay "the argument advanced is not predicated on the wrongness of speciesism, nor does it depend on your believing that all animals are equal or that all animals have a right to life, nor is it predicated on some highly contentious metaethical theory which you reject." He bases it on what he assumes are your own personal beliefs.

If you believe that a world with more pain and suffering is better than one with less pain and suffering, than I'd like to hear why you hold that belief.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

So, how do we measure the pain and suffering of a domesticated meat animal (such as a cow) and compare that to it's wild equivalent?

Where are the studies that suggest a domestic cow suffers more than a wild bison (or equivalent)?

The argument assumes that vegetarianism is a morally preferable dietary lifestyle, so there would be no need for retaining domestic animals raised for their meat. Thus those animals need be compared to their wild equivalents - as that is where they will end up.

Without any measurement or means of comparison, the argument falls a little flat.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Leonardo

[Michelle]

So human gastronomic taste trumps gratuitous pain and suffering to other animals?

Would it be morally good for someone to skin a dog alive and eat it? Because it tastes yummy?

And here is where you lose the moral high ground. Animals are only tortured before being eaten, in the wild...by other animals. Not to say there aren't some ubelievably cruel people in the world, but it isn't the norm.

[Set the Fallen]

I'm going fishing, sorry fishes for the pain i will inflict on you...

[Beckys_Mom]

Suffering is part of life, or would you see child birth with no pain and suffering to fit this little snap shot of tranquillity you've made up in the la la land your from? Or do we now have a different standards of what suffering is allowed. You seem pretty on the ball about this suffering thing, so you tell me about it?

Correct, suffering is part of life.. its what every human goes through...

Young babies will suffer from IE- Teething.. they don't understand the pain.. all they want is for you to ease it...

And here is where you lose the moral high ground. Animals are only tortured before being eaten, in the wild...by other animals. Not to say there aren't some ubelievably cruel people in the world, but it isn't the norm.

100% on the money