Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[The Grand Nudger]

As I've explained, if an animals has the capacity to feel pain and suffer then it has interests. Without that capacity, it has no interests. This seems an entirely sensible approach.

Absolutely, if one wanted to base their morality on these terms, and they were willing to accept that a great amount of life is left out along those terms, it's perfectly sensible. I long ago conceded this point (even if only for the sake of moving the discussion forward). I don't agree, but I'm willing to go with it because I don't have to stop you there. I can stop you at any point in the process you have lain out.

Necessary harm & suffering could be a immunization injection. Unnecessary suffering would be in the main the eating of 10 billion animals in the US each year.

So if we eat them it is "unnecesary", and this would of course be the case if we granted you the above (which again, at least for the purposes of discussion I have, long ago). What if we annihilate them in the pursuit of other food sources? Is that necessary? If so, why would it matter which way they met their end?

No. I will go with the evidence. If you could demonstrate that the suffering attached to the harvest of a vegetable crops is greater than that caused by meat production then I would listen. Of course, we both realise that many crops are grown just to feed animals that will themselves be eaten. Come up with a convincing argument and I will listen.

What evidence? The evidence that tells us that crops require fertility? The evidence that lays out where we source this fertility? The evidence that provides a list of consequences for sourcing this fertility from either source? That evidence? Or the evidence that you yourself have opinions? It is not up to me to make a compelling argument for anything, you started in on this, you have an argument to make. Attempting to shift the burden onto those who would criticize your arguments isn't exactly looked upon as intellectual honesty. I'm asking you to provide a little consistency here, I have been for some time. Is it so difficult to simply say "yes, the sentient creatures which would be completely and utterly annihilated by our reliance on petrochem (and all that this entails) must die. It is necessary."?

Not everyone, no. For a start there are a of other vegans & vegetarians out there. I am not aware of any human medical condition that would require them to eat meat. There might be and if eating a sentient animal was the only option then as long as all practical steps were taken to minimise the suffering of the food source, then this minimal suffering could also be necessary.

The medical "condition" you are referring to is called "metabolism", expressed in human terms as "hunger". It does exist, or is this a point of contention between us? Those steps you describe can and have been taken. I guess that makes them necessary and removes that livestock operation from your list of unethical or immoral practices, doesn't it? Again, you're arguing for ethical omnivorism. So would I.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your justifications actually contain within them, unexpressed but completely foundational, a massive list of idealized assumptions.

In a "perfect" world where
-resources were evenly distributed
-economics were a non issue
-environmental concerns did not apply (both in production and consequence)
-all agreed on the definition of morality
-there were enough food to go around
-the technology to accomplish this existed

Then, worldwide veganism or vegetarianism would be compelling, and achievable. Granted (and here again only to keep the discussion moving), sadly we live in no such world.

[Anomalocaris]

I have no idea where you drew that conclusion from. Humans are animals, so why shouldn't we eat meat?

As just another animal, we are not special as theists believe; not created in the image of God. So this is no basis for out treatment of other animals. So, if you believe that it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain and suffering, on what basis would you restrict that consideration to just humans? Our consideration around inflicting pain and suffering must surely consider all those beings capable of feeling pain and suffering.

We are not special because god said so. We are special because I am one of us. If I happen to be a chicken, then some garantee of life, liberty and freedom from being eaten of the chicken kind will likely be special to me. But I am not chicken, i am human, so my enjoyment of eating chickens, a result of my biological and sociological evolutionary history, is special to me..

[Scabby Joe]

But I am not chicken, i am human, so my enjoyment of eating chickens, a result of my biological and sociological evolutionary history, is special to me..

Animal-eating is a social practice which is deeply embedded into modern culture. Slavery, the oppression of women, and institutionalized racism also once had this status; however, few if any suppose that this status is what makes these practices morally right or wrong. Animal-eating (speciesism) is wrong for the same reason slavery is wrong: it requires the persistent exploitation, coercion, and degradation of innocent people with basic welfare interests. So the fact that a practice has the weight of tradition on its side and a prominent place in a given culture is morally irrelevant.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wait, wait, animals are "people" now? Holy shit, the mire gets deeper. You're entirely certain that "people" aren't routinely exploited to put that soy-burger on your table? Be less naive.

If I don't own a slave, I'll survive. If I fail to adequetely oppress a female, I'll survive. If I do not eat...well....the clock is ticking, isn't it. Life is a bloody business Joe, you may not wish to see it on your own hands, but somebody somewhere is swimming in it all the same to provide you with what you desire.

[Anomalocaris]

So the fact that a practice has the weight of tradition on its side and a prominent place in a given culture is morally irrelevant.

Morality is itself irrelevent when the main impact on people are those which the people involved accept. Chicken are not people. Humans are people.

However, human like animals such as Scrubby joe who seek to elevate chicken to the level of people can not be said to be either people or chicken. They can not think pragmatically like people, and they are useless for eating. So they are chickenshit.

[jess_essential]

First let me say, that I LOVE Dawkins. I think he is absolutely brilliant! As for the meat eating thing, I don't think that eating meat is immoral. I can kind of see why he does, but for me, I dont think that is so. As far as the sexism aspect of it, that makes no sense to me because people eat both sexes of animals all the time. Racist to eat meat? I don't agree with that either, but a person can say a few things that don't make sense to everyone, and still be an all around genius. Dawkins is of no exception.

[Scabby Joe]

Scabby Joe Wrote: As I've explained, if an animals has the capacity to feel pain and suffer then it has interests. Without that capacity, it has no interests. This seems an entirely sensible approach.

Absolutely, if one wanted to base their morality on these terms, and they were willing to accept that a great amount of life is left out along those terms, it's perfectly sensible.

The premise is an assumed moral principle: causing harm is prima facie morally wrong, not because it violates some right or because it fails to maximize utility, but simply because it is wrong. If you don’t agree then my argument does not apply to you.

What evidence? The evidence that tells us that crops require fertility? The evidence that lays out where we source this fertility? The evidence that provides a list of consequences for sourcing this fertility from either source? That evidence?

The evidence that not eating many tens of billions of animals each year, with all the pain and suffering that goes with it, would be more than offset by the pain, harm and suffering that would follow following an abstinence of the practice of eating meat. I have given you numbers. Give me some numbers and reputable sources to back them up. That’s not shifting the burden, that’s making a case and inviting a reply.

Or the evidence that you yourself have opinions? It is not up to me to make a compelling argument for anything, you started in on this, you have an argument to make. Attempting to shift the burden onto those who would criticize your arguments isn't exactly looked upon as intellectual honesty. I'm asking you to provide a little consistency here, I have been for some time. Is it so difficult to simply say "yes, the sentient creatures which would be completely and utterly annihilated by our reliance on petro-chem (and all that this entails) must die. It is necessary."?

If your argument is that not eating meat would lead to a greater reliance on the petro-chemical industry, and that would somehow lead to even greater pain, harm and suffering, spell it out and make your case. I want to hear the fertiliser retort. I have not come across this argument in any reputable publication. On the other hand, there are several UN reports that spell out the huge impact the livestock industry is having on the plant. Those reports do NOT suggest that meat eating is the lesser of two evils as you seem to suggest.

You know that fertilizers are used to grow feed crops for livestock. More than one third of the world’s grain harvest is used to feed livestock. While corn is a staple food in many Latin American and Sub-Saharan countries, worldwide, it is used largely as feed. Some 70 to 80% of grain produced in the United States is fed to livestock. This all needs fertilizer! Half the water consumed in the U.S. is used to grow grain for cattle feed. A gallon of gasoline is required to produce a pound of grain-fed beef. With industrial agriculture, more petrochemicals are used. More energy is required to create fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, etc, to grow the grain that is used to feed cattle.

Now I know that you do not agree with factory farming practices and would wish for better, more sustainable methods. If this feasible, that is a good thing for the planet but it still does not mean that it is morally right to eat meat as per the argument I have set out.

---

As far as the sexism aspect of it, that makes no sense to me because people eat both sexes of animals all the time.

Maybe the point wasn't clearly made. I know people don't eat just one sex of animal!

---

So the fact that a practice has the weight of tradition on its side and a prominent place in a given culture is morally irrelevant.

Morality is itself irrelevent when the main impact on people are those which the people involved accept. Chicken are not people. Humans are people.

However, human like animals such as Scrubby joe who seek to elevate chicken to the level of people can not be said to be either people or chicken. They can not think pragmatically like people, and they are useless for eating. So they are chickenshit.

Fine argument. Well done!

---

Wait, wait, animals are "people" now? Holy shit, the mire gets deeper. You're entirely certain that "people" aren't routinely exploited to put that soy-burger on your table? Be less naive.

You haven't thought it through. I guess people are exploited in the production of soy beans. But, as you know, most soy bean production is for animal feed. If I had chicken to go with that soy burger, the harm would be worse.

If I don't own a slave, I'll survive. If I fail to adequetely oppress a female, I'll survive. If I do not eat...well....the clock is ticking, isn't it.

If you don't eat meat you will probably be more healthy and perhaps live a little longer. You want sources?

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you would be correct, it does not apply to me, nor does it apply to you, or, if it does, you're steadily shitting on your own moral principles.

You've made a case that we should cease current livestock production when possible. I agree (though likely for different reasons). This is not an issue of whether or not it would inconvenience anyone to have to transition their diets. I have explained to you, many times, that all agricultural production makes compromises. I will not explain something so basic as fertility to you again. I will not provide you with another source as to what is required, I have already given you an incredibly detailed account of it. I will, however, point out that you are not responding to my criticisms at all, instead creating your own arguments as though they were mine, and then arguing against yourself. I don't give a shit how much time you spend doing this, that's your own business. If you want to have a discussion with me, at any point, you are similarly free to do so. Just wrap up whatever disagreement you are having with your alter ego so that we can focus on our discussion.

My argument is that reducing intensive livestock production (regardless of whether we eat the meat or not, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of fertility and it's sources), would lead to increased reliance on petrochem. This isn't an entirely accurate statement, it is not my argument, it's a basic fact of agricultural production (and this would not be the only effect, but without you offering even a single workable solution, one potential crop and corresponding agricultural practice, how could I possibly give you a concise list?). You need sources that show you how destructive oil is on our environment, ourselves, and the creatures you hope to preserve? Is this a point of contention between us? If so, no problem, but I want to be absolutely certain you aren't just yanking my chain, I want to hear you say it. Don't you think that you might be left with the impression that agrees with your "moral principle" simply because you had not taken the time to see if they had also weighed in on the devastating effect of agricultural production in and of itself, or that of oil? Perhaps because you did just enough reading to find the answer you were looking for? You have given us numbers to show that current practices are a shit sandwich, this is not an argument for veganism, and I have never claimed that they weren't. Do your own work.

You realize that the crops grown for feed and the crops grown for human consumption are not the same, yes? Not in suitability for human consumption, land, water, or fertility requirements. Before we go any further, you are aware that "corn" isn't exactly a technical term for a single crop? If not, we have nothing to discuss, you allowed yourself to be misled through ignorance (or lack of interest) in the subject. If so, then what are we talking about here, reducing feed corn production, reducing livestock production..increasing mixed vegetable production? I agree, ethical omnivorism. We are a major livestock producer, I would expect to see alot of water go into it. Wouldn't you? You've ignored economics haven't you? Chances are any given tomato cames from Mexico, but roast beef is more likely to have been produced in the USA (this, of course, if you are a consumer in the US). Whether or not it is "morally right" as per the argument you have set out means very little to me if you cannot make a compelling argument in the first place Joe.

Let's take just one example that I think illustrates this basic lack of interest you have been expressing. You invoke the gallon of fuel required to produce a pound of beef, just where do you think most of that is consumed? Transportation of requirements and end product from producer to processor to consumer. This would be present even if the commodity produced were soybeans for human consumption (unless you want to drive over here to the US, pick up your soy allotment, then take it to wherever it is processed into whatever product you desire, and then drive home, and then, guess what...you've still used the fuel, and more so, since you aren't availing yourself of the system of distribution we have built in support of food production). How this little tidbit eluded you isn't even a mystery to me. You didn't want to consider it, and so you didn't. You also conveniently omit that these crops are being used to produce protein, a nutrient which they are often lacking themselves, not so in the case of soy, but just so in the case of grain. Protein, is being produced, feel free to gnaw on a cob of feed corn all day long, you won't be getting any.

No Joe, not just human people (but isn't this troubling for your argument in and of itself), agricultural production also exploits that other group of creatures you just declared "people", you know, the ones you're always thinking about whilst ignoring humans (it seems). You keep missing this point (or intentionally avoiding it). Your dietary choices have not afforded you an unassailable fortress from which you can shout moral proclamations down to the rest of us. You are a killer, same as me.

If I eat fish and veggies I'm likely to live longer and be healthier, you wan't sources? I'm going to repeat this again, because it bears mention. You are actually attempting many different debates, all rolled into one and called (by you) morality. The various subjects you have attempted to reduce to a single issue vote, as it were, are not being done any great service by this sort of reasoning. Neither you, nor I will see any of the changes we are both likely to support if this is what we present to the status quo as justification.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's get specific. Do you think that it is livestock, or the current livestock production practices that cause this increase in greenhouse gasses?

Let me ask you this in another way. Where was all the greenhouse gas when herds of buffalo larger than the eye could see traipsed all over the US?

Do you imagine that livestock are "creating" greenhouse gasses when pasture raised? Has anyone ever explained the "short term" or "terrestrial" carbon cycle to you, and how it applies to agriculture and livestock production? By comparison, do you imagine that the grower of soybeans, utilizing motorized equipment, would be contributing less or more to this problem (regardless of whose mouth the crop finds it's way into- this one is actually me being very kind to you, we use the livestock's feces as fertilizer, returning it to the carbon cycle even though in many cases we sourced it from fossil fuels, we do not do this with our own, in this way, livestock is capable of aiding in capture-)? This is just one farm. Extrapolate that to the worldwide agricultural landscape.

Are you willing to expend the amount of energy, irrigation, and fertility required to bring pastureland up to cropland standards? Where will it all come from, and what will we do with all the wildlife on the pasture (you may not see it, but I promise that it's there)?

Can you give us a rough synopsis of the available amount of land that would be suitable for soya production? Could you suggest any previously un-leveraged regions that would make for soya "bread-baskets- so to speak (should we -gasp- find ourselves in need of increasing production)?

Just for comparison, pasture land is easily the most meager of land available. Any place that suitable stands of vegetation grow is suitable for pasture. Amusingly, fertilization and irrigation, and cultivation actually decrease lands suitability for pasture (which is why we've been steadily moving away from this practice-in addition to its being an added cost- for decades). What happens, when you engage in these things, is that biodiversity instantly decreases, and as this decreases some valuable nutrient sources (to the pastured animals, not ourselves..we can't eat that garbage) disappear. Your appeals to fertilizer and pesticides only apply to battery bred grain and soy fed livestock.

[Zen Badger]

Animal-eating is a social practice which is deeply embedded into modern culture. Slavery, the oppression of women, and institutionalized racism also once had this status; however, few if any suppose that this status is what makes these practices morally right or wrong. Animal-eating (speciesism) is wrong for the same reason slavery is wrong: it requires the persistent exploitation, coercion, and degradation of innocent people with basic welfare interests. So the fact that a practice has the weight of tradition on its side and a prominent place in a given culture is morally irrelevant.

WTF did I just read??

You obviously missed the bit in biology class that talked about us being an omnivorous species.

We have always eaten meat, along with everything else that we could fit in our mouths.

Learn some science for fucks sake