The ethics if factory farming

[ShaMan]

But hey...if it came down to it man, it's essentially a thunderdome issue, 2 men enter.....you know?

I know.

[bennyboy]

I think it's a net benefit-- FOR PEOPLE. I don't, however, agree that this is the only, or the best, basis for a moral view of meat-eating.

[Bibliofagus]

I buy and eat free range meat. In a perfectly 'globalised' world this would make me feel guilty about being in the priviledged position to choose this option, because I would feel I'd be making it harder for poorer people to do so as well. But I don't live in a global village, so I'm okay.

[Amalynne0]

I'm vaguely reminded of this satirical animation...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGMYdalClU

[Minimalist]

The other day I saw a chicken wearing a Human-skin hat. Seems fair

---

Morality takes a back seat to necessity, in my estimation.

Would you slaughter a less-fortunate Human for meat if it were 'necessary' for your survival (since morality is in the back seat)?

Let's not pretend that it hasn't happened.

[ShaMan]

---

The other day I saw a chicken wearing a Human-skin hat. Seems fair

---

Would you slaughter a less-fortunate Human for meat if it were 'necessary' for your survival (since morality is in the back seat)?

---

Let's not pretend that it hasn't happened.

[Natachan]

I think it's a net benefit-- FOR PEOPLE. I don't, however, agree that this is the only, or the best, basis for a moral view of meat-eating.

This is really what interests me. For a while I was a vegetarian, and I know a few now. We are/were vegetarians for moral reasons, that the slaughter of animals was a cause of needless suffering. That causing an animal to suffer was morally reprehensible (btw, this is currently why I oppose halal meat, that is inhumane and sick). My views changed as I studied anthropology, and did some independent study on ecology and biology. Now I hold that eating meat is ok so long as the animal lived a good life and their slaughter was not overly cruel.

Here's the issue though, if factory meat farms stopped the price of meat would increase. People would be forced to eat more starchy carbs, which cause really negative health problems. Malnutrition would increase.

So is it ethical to cause an increase in animal suffering and to treat animals like a commodity if it increases the well-being of some humans?

[bennyboy]

So is it ethical to cause an increase in animal suffering and to treat animals like a commodity if it increases the well-being of some humans?

Is it ethical to cause an increase in black suffering and to treat negroes like a commodity if it increases the well-being of good church-going white folk? Why not-- we all know they don't have a soul anyway, so what's the harm in letting them work for their keep?

I'd argue that inflicting great suffering in order to eliminate relatively minor suffering represents a greater evil, and is therefore unethical. The average American will manage somehow to survive without that 5th Big Mac of the day.

[Cato]

Seems a little dubious, "I'm going to take good care of you right up to the point I slaughter you for food".

[Natachan]

Seems a little dubious, "I'm going to take good care of you right up to the point I slaughter you for food".

*shrug*

Humans are omnivorous. Our bodies are designed to eat meat. While this is a bit creepy cattle can't survive without humans anymore. So why not let them be content and live natural lives before we eat them? It's not as ethical as hunting for meat, but it's preferable to packing them into small enclosed spaces.

Is it ethical to cause an increase in black suffering and to treat negroes like a commodity if it increases the well-being of good church-going white folk? Why not-- we all know they don't have a soul anyway, so what's the harm in letting them work for their keep?

I'd argue that inflicting great suffering in order to eliminate relatively minor suffering represents a greater evil, and is therefore unethical. The average American will manage somehow to survive without that 5th Big Mac of the day.

I'd argue this is a somewhat false analogy. A cow is not a person, their needs are different. A cow does not have the cognitive ability of a person, nor does it have the physical needs of a human. So it is perfectly acceptable to treat a cow differently than a person.

And we aren't talking about that fifth Big Mac, it would essentially mean completely removing meat from the diet of the poorest people.