Steak

[Whateverist]

I've never felt compelled to seek a justification. It is only from the point of view that sees us as rational beings that the idea even comes up.

Well, we are rational beings. Just because lower animals apparently don't have the capacity to reason isn't a reason to stop being rational. You can't just try to shut off your rational faculties so you can engage in some activity guilt free. If I were to take your argument and take it to the absurd (argument ad absurdum), I can justify any act such as human murder, rape, slavery etc. Your application of your argument is purely arbitrary and inconsistent.

Okay I agree that we ought not shut down our rational minds when it comes to meat eating. But I'm only concerned with minimizing pain and anxiety for food animals, not with killing them for food.

There are other and better reasons to limit meat eating though. Much more acreage of arable land are required to eat a steak vs vegetables and grains. Since I value living on a planet with a diversity of life forms, it matters to me not to squander resources. If you extrapolate our western diet to the rest of the world it probably isn't even possible, let alone sustainable. So we really should consider just how selfish we want to be about this.

Vegetables are not conscious. They don't think, perceive, have desires, etc. They're little different than rocks in that regard.

I don't know this. Plants are alive but so foreign to us that empathy fails. They do respond purposefully to their environments in response to various threats and opportunities. That response looks mechanistic to us, but I suppose those who argue against free will think something similar about us. Plants don't have animal consciousness, given. Do they have no experience of their environment? I don't know. (Doesn't stop me from eating them. Pass the asparagus.)

It is important to remember that we are animals ourselves and therefore part of the dance of eating and being eaten.

This is a fallacious argument of appeal to nature. Just because we're animals and part of the food chain does not justify that we can willingly be part of that system.

I think there is something gone wrong in losing sight of the fact that we too are animals. I agree that saying we are animals should not endorse any and all actions for which we can find an analogue in the natural world. But if you fail to take into account that our rational minds are an add-on to a mammalian organism, you may fall prey to another fallacy: thinking that our rational capacity should be as impartial as that of a computer when in fact we are embodied animals with emotional and instinctual layers as well.

[Jackalope]

So, in the interest of getting this thread back on the rails...

Lamb chops. I'm a big fan.

[popeyespappy]

Bacon wrapped, blue cheese stuffed filet mignon cooked medium with garlic mashed potatoes, asparagus grilled with garlic and black pepper and an ice cold lettuce wedge with crispy bacon, blue cheese crumbles and a balsamic vinaigrette.

Don’t forget the crème brulee for desert.

---

Lamb chops. I'm a big fan.

With a mustard cream sauce.

[Jackalope]

Bacon wrapped, blue cheese stuffed filet mignon cooked medium with garlic mashed potatoes, asparagus grilled with garlic and black pepper and an ice cold lettuce wedge with crispy bacon, blue cheese crumbles and a balsamic vinaigrette.

Don’t forget the crème brulee for desert.

Sounds like dinner to me.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I've never felt that one was necessary. It's my view that we (in the developed world, where food is abundant) only take it under consideration because we are successful enough that we can afford to.

This is essentially a genetic fallacy. "You're arguments are only the result of your cultural background and economical standing therefore you're wrong."

Can we apply the same standards of morality to say, the people of Somalia?

I'm not sure. Perhaps you could say that killing an animal is ok to prevent from starving but this raises the whole other issue of whether human life is superior to lower animal life. This thinking assumes that it is better for a human to live than a lower animal, say a cow, to live. But why is that so?

I believe the question is necessarily subjective.

But whether rape or murder is wrong or not isn't subjective?

[Hughsie]

So, in the interest of getting this thread back on the rails...

Lamb chops. I'm a big fan.

Lamb chops are good but it's blasphemy to even mention them on a steak thread!

---

For as long as people massacre animals, they will kill each other. He who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.

From an entirely selfish and subjective point of view, I simply value my love over steak over the animal who died to provide it.

From a more objective point of view, I think that as long as you buy free-range then in a way you are improving an animals life. Most animals that become steak are farmed simply for the purposes of consumption. Without the demand for meat they wouldn't be farmed and so would never have lived. At least this way they get some life.

[Whateverist]

Love lamb. I've had a rack of lamb served with wasabi mashed potatoes that was to die for. If either of you guys are cooking tonight, I've got a bottle of a friend's home made wine that is incredible already chilled and I can be right over.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Well, we are rational beings. Just because lower animals apparently don't have the capacity to reason isn't a reason to stop being rational. You can't just try to shut off your rational faculties so you can engage in some activity guilt free. If I were to take your argument and take it to the absurd (argument ad absurdum), I can justify any act such as human murder, rape, slavery etc. Your application of your argument is purely arbitrary and inconsistent.

Okay I agree that we ought not shut down our rational minds when it comes to meat eating. But I'm only concerned with minimizing pain and anxiety for food animals, not with killing them for food.

There are other and better reasons to limit meat eating though. Much more acreage of arable land are required to eat a steak vs vegetables and grains. Since I value living on a planet with a diversity of life forms, it matters to me not to squander resources. If you extrapolate our western diet to the rest of the world it probably isn't even possible, let alone sustainable. So we really should consider just how selfish we want to be about this.

Good points.

Vegetables are not conscious. They don't think, perceive, have desires, etc. They're little different than rocks in that regard.

I don't know this. Plants are alive but so foreign to us that empathy fails. They do respond purposefully to their environments in response to various threats and opportunities. That response looks mechanistic to us, but I suppose those who argue against free will think something similar about us. Plants don't have animal consciousness, given. Do they have no experience of their environment? I don't know. (Doesn't stop me from eating them. Pass the asparagus.)

Well, plants don't have brains, and as far as I know, brains are necessary for biological intelligence and self awareness.

This is a fallacious argument of appeal to nature. Just because we're animals and part of the food chain does not justify that we can willingly be part of that system.

I think there is something gone wrong in losing sight of the fact that we too are animals. I agree that saying we are animals should not endorse any and all actions for which we can find an analogue in the natural world. But if you fail to take into account that our rational minds are an add-on to a mammalian organism, you may fall prey to another fallacy: thinking that our rational capacity should be as impartial as that of a computer when in fact we are embodied animals with emotional and instinctual layers as well.

Which is again, taking and is and turning it into an ought.

---

So, in the interest of getting this thread back on the rails...

Lamb chops. I'm a big fan.

I love lamb in greek food. Never get to eat it that often though.

[Whateverist]

I think there is something gone wrong in losing sight of the fact that we too are animals. I agree that saying we are animals should not endorse any and all actions for which we can find an analogue in the natural world. But if you fail to take into account that our rational minds are an add-on to a mammalian organism, you may fall prey to another fallacy: thinking that our rational capacity should be as impartial as that of a computer when in fact we are embodied animals with emotional and instinctual layers as well.

Which is again, taking an is and turning it into an ought.

I don't see it. At most, I think I'm taking an "is possible" and granting myself permission to act. I insist on no general ought's for anyone else. But I do choose to cut myself considerable slack when it comes to making room for spontaneity.

The unconsidered life may not be worth living but then again neither would be a life in which each and every action must be morally justified. I'm a mortal animal who refuses to spend every finite minute of my existence weighing the pros and cons before I ever act. If you feel that I shouldn't do so, the ought would seem to be coming from you, not me.

[Jackalope]

Lamb chops are good but it's blasphemy to even mention them on a steak thread!

No. Just no.

What are lamb chops but small steaks?

I suppose you're going to speaking out against pork chops next, you foul blasphemer.

---

But whether rape or murder is wrong or not isn't subjective?

I believe that it is subjective. It is perhaps nearly universal amongst humans, however, consider this - would the moral objections to murder and rape exist if there were no humans on Earth?