Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

I don't think that halal is such a good idea, they are allowed to circumvent what laws we do have based on a religious belief. I've commented upon that here on this site. I'm no friend of religious traditions as they apply to food production, not even a little bit.

What makes veal production more or less ethical than any other type of livestock operation? Because they're babies? That sounds like an emotional issue, not a issue of logic. I don't eat veal, mostly because it just doesn't jump out to me as "tasty". But I don't call veal operations unethical because I don't have any argument against them, and they seem to operate within the scope of the laws we have created to address ethics.

So, you feel the laws are lacking, that's fine, let's discuss how we could better those laws from your point of view. I don't disagree with you here in the least bit. On the other hand I don't think that we're going to reach the conclusion you seem to hope for.

You have either misunderstood me or I did not clearly communicate my thoughts on the matter. "Unnecessary suffering" is no such thing -as an absolute-. It's just a description of things which you or I have assigned a negative value judgement to, and our lists are likely to be different.

Why not minimize it? We do............that's why we have animal welfare laws that apply to livestock production.

The question I've been repeating for many posts now, is whether or not there might be a livestock production system that meets the criteria of avoiding "unnecessary suffering", because if there isn't, then we may as well just drop the pretense of basing our arguments on this principle, right? Just call a spade a spade "Livestock production is morally wrong in all cases". If you you create a separation between "necessary" and "unnecessary" suffering, but then put all suffering on the side of "unnecessary" then what is the point of creating the distinction in the first place? If there is such a system, if livestock can be produced without "unnecessary" suffering then vegetarianism is not some moral or ethical absolute, is it?

Veal production and the production of halal meat are both legal. Do you have a bias based on one being for a religious belief.

The veal crate is a wooden restraining device that is the veal calf's permanent home. It is so small (22" x 54") that the calves cannot turn around or even lie down and stretch and is the ultimate in high-profit, confinement animal agriculture. Designed to prevent movement (exercise), the crate does its job of atrophying the calves' muscles, thus producing tender "gourmet" veal.

The calves are generally fed a milk substitute intentionally lacking in iron and other essential nutrients. This diet keeps the animals anemic and creates the pale pink or white color desired in the finished product. Craving iron, the calves lick urine-saturated slats and any metallic parts of their stalls. Farmers also withhold water from the animals, who, always thirsty, are driven to drink a large quantity of the high-fat liquid feed.

They are then slaughtered at 14 weeks.

I think treating a newly born calf in this way is unethical. It matters not to me whether it is done for religious purposes or to satisfy someone's taste for the flavour.

It used to be legal to keep slaves, but thankfully, someone was not satisfied with society's stance and eventually the law was changed. Not sure why you keep raising law as an issue.

Calves are not babies. I would argue though, that a new born calf and a new born baby have a capacity to suffer and feel pain much on a par with one another. On what logical basis do we treat them differently?

I do think that livestock production is wrong for a lots of reasons. First comes the ethical basis of inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering but then there are other ethical concerns like global warming etc. I am a pragmatist and fully understand that not everyone is going to become a vegetarian. Many are not open to the idea of not eating meat because they like it so much - there are some inane posts in this thread that are testament to the lack of an ability to think here. There are lots of things meat eaters could do to make the world a better place like eating less of it, avoiding factory farmed animals etc. And there is some evidence that this is happening but I think more out of self-interest (avoiding cancer) than through ethical choice.

[The Grand Nudger]

No I have a bias for asserting that laws should be applied equally in each and every case. Halal exemptions are contradictory to this principle of mine. Veal production, on the other hand, is not.

Now, on to your objections regarding veal. The process seems to be unsavory, doesn't it? Let's remove the "newborn calves" bit, because if it isn't ethical to treat an animal in this way it matters very little what stage of life they are in. That's an appeal to emotion (we have a soft spot for newborn anythings), and it makes for a poor argument if we're invoking some sort of logical process complete with moral and ethical absolutes.

"You would argue that", I don't give a shit, and neither do the people that write these laws. You "must demonstrate that". As it stands, we do not consider any livestock animal on par with ourselves in the areas of sentience, self-awareness, or suffering. If you could establish that they were, you'd still be left with the practical concern that we're going to have to off something, somehow, if we expect to continue living. Now, I'm not some vocal supporter of veal production, or battery farming, or grain fed cattle. These things to me seem to be a misuse of our resources. That doesn't mean that they are morally "wrong", it just means that I think we could better use our resources while achieving the same ends that the current system offers us. Pointing to veal makes livestock production as a whole unethical or immoral how? Veal itself is unethical or immoral how, because you say so, or would argue so?

You have again invoked "unnecessary" suffering and I have been begging for you (or anyone) to create even a short list of what lies on either side of this line. I cannot sign on with your argument as a moral or ethical absolute until someone can do this. I can't even sign on with it as morally or ethically pragmatic without such a definition of terms. There are things that vegetarians could do to make the world a better place as well, like avoiding organic foods (then we wouldn't need livestock), and not eating (then we wouldn't need to destroy environments to source, or leverage nutrients, or for ag in the first place). Do either of these solutions seem "ideal" to you? Would either of them achieve your stated goal of avoiding "unnecessary suffering"? Perhaps we should go hunter-gatherer sans hunter? Do you imagine that this would prevent or cause "unnecessary suffering"?

[Minimalist]

It seems as if the vegetarians are battling evolution.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...154417.htm

Evolutionary History of What Mammals Eat: Some Groups of Mammals Have Changed Their Feeding Strategies Over Time

[Scabby Joe]

No I have a bias for asserting that laws should be applied equally in each and every case. Halal exemptions are contradictory to this principle of mine. Veal production, on the other hand, is not.

Now, on to your objections regarding veal. The process seems to be unsavory, doesn't it? Let's remove the "newborn calves" bit, because if it isn't ethical to treat an animal in this way it matters very little what stage of life they are in. That's an appeal to emotion (we have a soft spot for newborn anythings), and it makes for a poor argument if we're invoking some sort of logical process complete with moral and ethical absolutes.

Newborn calves bit. The point here is that the animals are desperate to fulfill the natural desire to suckle. They are denied this and this causes stress and unnecessary suffering. Hope you can now see the logic.

"You would argue that", I don't give a shit, and neither do the people that write these laws. You "must demonstrate that". As it stands, we do not consider any livestock animal on par with ourselves in the areas of sentience, self-awareness, or suffering.

Do sentience, self-awareness, or the ability to suffer reckon in your ethical reasoning? If they do, as you imply, we can discuss.

If you could establish that they were, you'd still be left with the practical concern that we're going to have to off something, somehow, if we expect to continue living.

Yes, but we can minimise the suffering we inflict. That is the whole point.

Now, I'm not some vocal supporter of veal production, or battery farming, or grain fed cattle. These things to me seem to be a misuse of our resources. That doesn't mean that they are morally "wrong", it just means that I think we could better use our resources while achieving the same ends that the current system offers us.

Pointing to veal makes livestock production as a whole unethical or immoral how? Veal itself is unethical or immoral how, because you say so, or would argue so?

If you want, I can explain why broiler, pig and beef production also cuase unnecessary suffering. I'm not extrapolating.

You have again invoked "unnecessary" suffering and I have been begging for you (or anyone) to create even a short list of what lies on either side of this line.

Not entirely sure what you mean. I'm not particularly interested in getting into some academic debate about absolute or relative moral values. I can make a case for either if you want. I'm more interested in what you think. If you think halal is unethical/immoral, what is your logic?

When you ask for a shortlist, what do you mean? Do you want an example of say, torturing children for fun as something that is an example of causing unnecessary suffering. I'm sure I could come up with a lot of similar nonsense but I'm not sure that is what you are after.

I cannot sign on with your argument as a moral or ethical absolute until someone can do this.

There may or may not be moral absolutes. I don't think it is provable either way. What I've put forward is an ethical conisderation based on logic that you seem determined to dismiss because it is emotional. There can of course be emotions attached with ethical issues, no doubt about it, but just becasue theere are doesn't mean we should ignore the logic.

---

It seems as if the vegetarians are battling evolution.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...154417.htm

Evolutionary History of What Mammals Eat: Some Groups of Mammals Have Changed Their Feeding Strategies Over Time

What on earth is that meant to mean? If you are trying to say that our evolutionary ancesters were onmivores - no arguement. If you are saying that because they were onmivores, we should be, that is nonsense.

We are reasoning beings who have developed ethics to make choices. It is perfectly possible to chose to eat no meat, many millions do.

Our distant ancesters were able to become pregnant at the age of 10 or 11 years old, just as they are today. I'm sure your not saying it is ethical to impregnate girls of this age. We've moved on and can think.

[Minimalist]

If you are trying to say that our evolutionary ancesters were onmivores - no arguement. If you are saying that because they were onmivores, we should be, that is nonsense.

No, our remote ancestors were herbivores who evolved into omnivores.

The reason we should remain omnivores is because evolution has adapted our bodies that way and pretending that the last million or so years did not happen is, frankly, silly.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is "perfectly possible" to choose not to eat meat (but only for some), and if you prefer to consider it a moral or ethical decision then you could call it "perfectly logical" if you like, just so long as we're willing to provide that "academic" discussion about our assertions and still, this only applies to some. I'm still waiting to see any elaboration on this unnecessary suffering bit, and how you've avoided it by choosing not to eat meat. I keep seeing it over and over, but the longer this goes on without any elaboration the more I am beginning to suspect that it is a weasel phrase, and that you realize this as easily as I do.

We've moved on from many things, one thing we have not moved on from is the need for sustenance. You're going to cause suffering any way you choose to go about it. What makes the suffering you choose to cause "less immoral" or "less unethical" than the suffering the bacon lover chooses to cause? So far it seems to me to be a matter of assigning positive value judgement to what you choose to eat because you choose to eat it, and negative value judgement to what you choose not to eat because you don't eat it. In other words, I'm not surprised that you don't think the things that you eat make you immoral or unethical by your own standards, neither do I, but If I can be said to be either of these things due to my dietary choices then you are subject to the same criticism, and isn't it possible that we are both equally immoral/moral unethical/ethical even by our own standards (or each others)?

[Scabby Joe]

If you are trying to say that our evolutionary ancesters were onmivores - no arguement. If you are saying that because they were onmivores, we should be, that is nonsense.

No, our remote ancestors were herbivores who evolved into omnivores.

The reason we should remain omnivores is because evolution has adapted our bodies that way and pretending that the last million or so years did not happen is, frankly, silly.

You missed the point. All that evolutionary time equipped females to have babies when they are 10 years old. Does that mean it is ethical to allow them to become pregnant at that age. Would you get a 10 year old pregnant or like me would you think it sick and unethical. We are not slaves to our evolutionary past now we can think rationally and come up with ideas about what is right and what is wrong. Silly to think otherwise.

[The Grand Nudger]

We have done that, and we have arrived at our current livestock and ag. You disagree with one, but the other is A-OK? They are both damned by the same metrics that you only seem to leverage against one. Personally, I chalk this down to misunderstanding of how compatible our individual moral or ethical principles might be when it comes to food production overall. That and rationalizing a decision that isn't entirely based in reason.

[mediamogul]

It is "perfectly possible" to choose not to eat meat (but only for some), and if you prefer to consider it a moral or ethical decision then you could call it "perfectly logical" if you like, just so long as we're willing to provide that "academic" discussion about our assertions and still, this only applies to some. I'm still waiting to see any elaboration on this unnecessary suffering bit, and how you've avoided it by choosing not to eat meat. I keep seeing it over and over, but the longer this goes on without any elaboration the more I am beginning to suspect that it is a weasel phrase, and that you realize this as easily as I do.

We've moved on from many things, one thing we have not moved on from is the need for sustenance. You're going to cause suffering any way you choose to go about it. What makes the suffering you choose to cause "less immoral" or "less unethical" than the suffering the bacon lover chooses to cause? So far it seems to me to be a matter of assigning positive value judgement to what you choose to eat because you choose to eat it, and negative value judgement to what you choose not to eat because you don't eat it. In other words, I'm not surprised that you don't think the things that you eat make you immoral or unethical by your own standards, neither do I, but If I can be said to be either of these things due to my dietary choices then you are subject to the same criticism, and isn't it possible that we are both equally immoral/moral unethical/ethical even by our own standards (or each others)?

I will type a response later. My pesky job is getting in the way right now.

Damn reality.

[Scabby Joe]

It is "perfectly possible" to choose not to eat meat (but only for some), and if you prefer to consider it a moral or ethical decision then you could call it "perfectly logical" if you like, just so long as we're willing to provide that "academic" discussion about our assertions and still, this only applies to some. I'm still waiting to see any elaboration on this unnecessary suffering bit, and how you've avoided it by choosing not to eat meat. I keep seeing it over and over, but the longer this goes on without any elaboration the more I am beginning to suspect that it is a weasel phrase, and that you realize this as easily as I do.

We've moved on from many things, one thing we have not moved on from is the need for sustenance. You're going to cause suffering any way you choose to go about it. What makes the suffering you choose to cause "less immoral" or "less unethical" than the suffering the bacon lover chooses to cause? So far it seems to me to be a matter of assigning positive value judgement to what you choose to eat because you choose to eat it, and negative value judgement to what you choose not to eat because you don't eat it. In other words, I'm not surprised that you don't think the things that you eat make you immoral or unethical by your own standards, neither do I, but If I can be said to be either of these things due to my dietary choices then you are subject to the same criticism, and isn't it possible that we are both equally immoral/moral unethical/ethical even by our own standards (or each others)?

Not sure I am following your question but I'll try this. I agree that I need food to live. I can chose either plants or animals to eat. Animals don't suffer pain, animals like pigs, cows and chickens do. Inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering is not ethical. Humans are just another species of animal, not made in the image of god. I try not to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on other humans, why would I do it to other animals. Meat production entails pain and suffering on a far larger scale than agriculture. So the most ethical position is to eat plants rather than animals.

It is completelt arbitrary to justify the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on other animals just becuase they belong to another species. In human society we reject sexism and rascism because we believe that all races and sexes should have an equal conisderation of their interests. Their interest stems from their ability to feel pan and to suffer. It does not come from a recognition that all people are equal when clearly they are not. People are very different - some cleverer, some stronger etc etc. Just as it is arbitrary to discriminate against the interests of other humans on the basis of skin colour, so too is it arbitrary to discriminate against other animals because they belong to another species.

Some humans are unfortunately born with sever brain damage or becoome chronically senile. They will be less intelligent than many other animals and will not have a higher capacity to suffer. Why then would we be willing to subject anumals to pain and suffering and not those unfortunate humans with greatly reduced capacities?

I accept that fully functioning humans do have a higher capacity to suffer than other animals. On this basis I would not hesiate to save the life of a human over a dog. What I don;t see the logic in is why all animals capable of feeling pain and suffering have their interests largely ignored.

If I've missed the point I'm sure you'll let me know.

I also wanted to say that you seem like a good guy, I hope I haven't come across as testy - I apologise if I have. I am happy to hear your views and will give them thought and trust you will reciprocate.