The Ethics of Eating Non-Human Animals

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

"If non-human animals are morally considerable, and being in agony always gives us a reason to avoid it, then it rationally follows that causing non-human animals to be in agony gives us normative reason to alleviate it."

This right here sums up the whole thing. You can be against aspects of how food is handled but you're going way past that.

Some animals raised for food suffer.

Therefore all animals should not be raised for food???

What's your fancy name for the logical mistake you made here?

[Guest Gumballthechewy]

skillfully

[Mr.Habitat]

Biologically speaking, I believe this is not true. We are closer to specialized frugivores like chimps, who also consume some meat and insects. We are not omnivores like bears are.

[Angry Goose]

So if I would eat a dog it's ok for me to eat a turkey?

Well where is the line?

Do you use plastic bags? Well then you might as well eat meat because plastic bags utilize animal fat. Hope you don't take your bike anywhere because several bike tires (and car tires) use stearic acid. Don't get me started on if you've ever enjoyed fireworks or don't research shampoo, toothpaste, sugar, fabric softener, beer, wine, glue, biofuel, marshmallows. And let me add that if your residence catches fire don't you dare use a fire extinguisher because if you do you might as well be eating meat.

Stupid arguments beget stupid arguments.

[Guest Gumballthechewy]

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Wow. Committing straw man arguments is clearly a favorite past time of yours.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Researcher: Vegetarian Diet Kills Animals Too

By Lee Dye

May 1

Steven Davis says he didn't set out to start a fight, but found one when he began attacking one of the most sacred beliefs of the vegetarian community.

One of the reasons most commonly cited by vegetarians for giving up meat is the conviction that other animals have a right to life as well as humans. But when Davis began setting up a course on animal ethics for the animal science department at Oregon State University four years ago, he reached a rather surprising conclusion.

Nobody's hands are free from the blood of other animals, not even vegetarians, he concluded. Millions of animals are killed every year, Davis says, to prepare land for growing crops, "like corn, soybean, wheat and barley, the staples of a vegan diet."

Smaller Victims

The animals in this case are mice and moles and rabbits and other creatures that are run over by tractors, or lose their habitat to make way for farming, so they are not as "visible" as cattle, he says.

And that, Davis says, gives rise to a fundamental question: "What is it that makes it OK to kill animals of the field so that we can eat [vegetables or fruits] but not pigs or chickens or cows?"

Any disruption of the land, whether it be to farm or to build subdivisions, reduces the amount of land left for other animals, resulting in the deaths of many. And Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State who grew up on a farm, says as a child he saw animals killed by the routine operation of farm machinery, so there's no way to have a bloodless farm.

"If they say they don't want to kill an animal so they can eat, I think their conclusion is misguided because they are killing animals so that they can eat that vegetarian diet," Davis says. "Those animals happen to be a little bit invisible. They are not as obvious to the man on the street as killing a steer in the slaughterhouse. But nonetheless, it's still going on."

Ever since he revealed his conclusions, Davis' e-mail box has been jammed with responses, much of it from vegetarians, and not all of it friendly. Most of it, though, has been "quite decent," he says, because vegetarians tend to be well-educated, sensitive and thoughtful folks.

One-Time Kill vs. Continuous Slaughter

"This is something we've been aware of for a long time," admits Jack Norris, president of Vegan Outreach in Davis, Calif., an organization that is dedicated to spreading the gospel of vegetarianism. (Norris is a vegan, by the way, which is even more restrictive then vegetarianism in that it rejects all animal products, including milk and other dairy products.)

It's obvious that some animals die when their land is taken away for farming, Norris says, "but you take it away only once." It doesn't lead to the continuous slaughter of animals for human consumption, he contends, because once the land is turned into a farm, there aren't that many animals around to kill.

Davis admits he doesn't really know how many animals are lost each year to agriculture, but he suspects it runs in the millions. Not many farmers do a before-and-after survey, so the best data are really just estimates.

But it's clear that many are killed to put meat and dairy products on our tables, and Norris and others are just as concerned over the suffering of those animals prior to slaughter as they are over the deaths themselves.

Citing numerous studies by federal agencies, as well as news organizations, Norris says in most cases it's tough being a farm animal. That's especially true for pigs and chickens.

Female breeding pigs are restricted to pens so small they can't even turn around, he says. Five to 10 chickens often are housed in cages "about the size of your typical microwave oven," he says.

And federal government statistics reveal that cows have been fed so much growth hormone that they boosted their milk production from an average 2.3 tons of milk per year for each cow in 1940 to 8.4 tons by 1997.

Norris says that has led to all kinds of diseases and sicknesses among cows.

Lay Off Chickens and Pigs?

Davis and Norris agree on one point. No system is perfect, and what's needed here is far more dialogue among growers, consumers and vegetarians.

Davis believes the death toll among all animals could be reduced if ranchers concentrated on raising cattle instead of pigs and chickens and let those cattle revert to foraging in open fields that could be shared with other animals.

Citing U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, Davis says of the 8.4 billion animals killed each year for food in the United States, 8 billion are poultry and only 41 million are cows, calves, sheep and lambs. So he figures you could double the number of cattle killed each year, and lay off the chickens, and consequently save about 7.5 billion animals.

But just letting cattle roam freely doesn't solve the problem either, Norris says, because other animals like coyotes and wolves would still likely be killed (just as they are today) to protect the cattle. And he still can't stand the thought of all those hamburgers.

It's not a perfect world, Davis counters, but perhaps with a lot more thought and cooperation, a better alternative might be found. But unless someone comes up with a brilliant idea, whether you eat meat or just fruit and vegetables, you're going to have to share somewhat in the bloodletting.

It might do more good, of course, if all of us just ate a little less of everything.

Lee Dye’s column appears weekly on ABCNEWS.com. A former science writer for the Los Angeles Times, he now lives in Juneau, Alaska.

[Tearloch7]

Wow. Committing straw man arguments is clearly a favorite past time of yours.

1.All the ad claims is that whatever normative reasons apply for not eating your dog as food (and the ad assumes correctly that the vast majority of dog owners would never eat their dogs) it is highly likely that those same reasons also apply to other animals purposed for food.

2. The ad says nothing about anything being derived from animals in some form or another is morally wrong. You are clearly taking things out of context.

3. Everything else you say is a mischaracterization of the ad's original intent. Attacking that mischaracterization is not valid. Hence, straw man.

Oh, and your glorious stupidity has been added to the OP. Good day.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

"If non-human animals are morally considerable, and being in agony always gives us a reason to avoid it, then it rationally follows that causing non-human animals to be in agony gives us normative reason to alleviate it."

This right here sums up the whole thing. You can be against aspects of how food is handled but you're going way past that.

Some animals raised for food suffer.

Therefore all animals should not be raised for food???

What's your fancy name for the logical mistake you made here?

[Angry Goose]

If this thread is about ethics and if the idea is brought up that if one wouldn't eat their own dog they shouldn't eat any other animal what I said is completely valid and I have no intention of burning anything down.

[D-Money]

/\

That penguin in your sig seems pretty happy with his mouth full of flesh.

The main argument of this thread - questioning the morality of it because you wouldn't want to eat your dog - is pretty weak. People become overly attached to their pets, and try to humanize them.

So on the one have we have common dietary practice, based on the observable natural order and proven over milleniums of human history. And on the other, criticism of the former based on nothing but a concept of pure sentimentality.

On top of that, one tastes like rib-eye steak, and the other like tofu.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

The argument claims that if on the face it would be wrong to eat your dog, those same reasons most likely apply to other animals purposed for food. You then went on a rant about other animal by products. That is already beyond the scope of the argument. Am I sayng there is no relation at all? No. But animal by-products isn't the (present) point at issue. When you widen the scope, you mischaracterize the argument because that is not necessarily what the arguer (PETA) is claiming.

[Common sense]

This thread, like my chicken tonight, is rather quite dry. It needs more anti-omnivore trolls and PETA lovers.

[ronthecivil]

This thread, like my chicken tonight, is rather quite dry. It needs more anti-omnivore trolls and PETA lovers.

[Angry Goose]

But it's not wrong to eat your dog...it's just culturally not appropriate. There is a difference. So that argument sucks because there are places where eating dog is just fine...there is no stigma attached.

[ronthecivil]

So making animals suffer is wrong but it's ok to let your opponent in the ring suffer? Tsk tsk. While it might seem ok in your instance being all rich and western many poor people get into it as it's one of the few ways out of poverty and as a result many end up getting serious brain damage in a desperate plea to make it through the world of human chicken fighting.

Tsk tsk such depravity! And here you are judging others!

I suggest you run off and donate your computer and internet money to feed some people in the third world as penance.

[D-Money]

I wouldn't eat my ficus, but I still have salad from time to time.

[avelanch]

I wouldn't eat my ficus, but I still eat salad from time to time.

[Angry Goose]

So making animals suffer is wrong but it's ok to let your opponent in the ring suffer? Tsk tsk. While it might seem ok in your instance being all rich and western many poor people get into it as it's one of the few ways out of poverty and as a result many end up getting serious brain damage in a desperate plea to make it through the world of human chicken fighting.

Tsk tsk such depravity! And here you are judging others!

I suggest you run off and donate your computer and internet money to feed some people in the third world as penance.

[Dral]

Why do so many of Silly Goose' posts have "stop using straw man on me" then end with "you're an idiot" ?