(March 8, 2013 at 11:24 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Eating animals isn't unethical, if we go by the ethics of nature [the only ethics that matter in this case].
That would be committing the fallacy of appealing to nature. Just because nature works in a way where animals eat other animals does not indicate any code of ethics for humans to follow - something exemplified in the fact that the way we eat animals and the way it occurs in nature are completely different. Furthermore, given that humanity in all other aspects has gone beyond what can conceivably be the "ethics of nature", there is no reason to assume that those would be or should be the only ethics to matter in this particular case.
(March 8, 2013 at 11:24 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Yes, we can choose to eat either plants or animals but plants are living organisms, too. Just cuz it can't yelp when you pluck an apple doesn't mean it's not made of organic, living materials. You start the argument that eating animals is unethical then you slide down the slippery slope to the point that you eventually reach the point where you'll have to starve to death because life comes from death via consumption.
Not quite - if minimizing pain and death of living organisms was your only consideration then a lacto-fruitarian diet would be the ideal solution. Whatever milk-products you have would be obtained from the animal in exchange for pasture and protection provided and eating of fruit is an important part of the reproduction cycle for plants and it helps in dissemination of seeds. So really, if your ethics are based solely on not causing unnecessary pain and suffering, this diet would fulfill your needs while performing a necessary function for plants and actually reducing the suffering of farm animals.
(March 8, 2013 at 11:24 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Noooo, he's just being realistic about what the extents of "humane treatment" are. While they live, treat them well, and when you go to kill them [because they're gonna die anyway eventually], do it quickly and cleanly and don't make them suffer. There's no contradiction here unless you're just trying to split hairs, which is just petty and argumentative for the sake of being petty and argumentative.
That's a poor rationalization. The contradiction here comes from the idea that treating animals well - only to kill them in the end - could somehow be considered humane. When the same standards are applied to humans - it is considered repulsive. If you treat another human as property, irrespective of how humanely you treat them, no one would consider it as something humane. If you kill them, justifying it with the fact that you were kind to them during their life and that they would've died eventually anyway - again, good luck convincing a jury that you were acting humanely. The only scenario where killing someone or something is considered humane is when the continuation of their life results in greater pain and suffering and that is not the case with eating animals. Less cruel than monstrous does not make you humane.
I consider the argument of "being realistic" here as hypocritical. You wouldn't consider "but we need people for work" as a valid justification for slavery, so you shouldn't consider "but we need meat" as a valid justification for slaughtering animals. If you think they deserve humane treatment then act accordingly and set them free to live their lives as naturally as possible. Don't hide behind the excuse that treating them marginally better is somehow humane. Don't pretend that in the end any empathetic or compassionate considerations are superseded by your own desires and a taste for meat. Don't try to ease the guilt by shoddy rationalizations and accept it as the logical consequence of your own conflicted morality.
