Is eating meat morally wrong

[2inquisitive]

James R:

It must be clear to you that my position is that it is immoral to eat meat. I have given you reasons, and I have asked you many times why it is moral (i.e. why I am wrong.) So far, your only substantive responses have been that what is natural is right (a logical fallacy), or that meat eating is outside the circle of moral consideration at all (which it isn't).

Perhaps you could give all of us a little clearer picture of what you consider moral and immoral, James R.

(1) I assume that it is OK for some animals (omnivores and carnivores) to eat other animals. I also assume the reason is those animals haven't developed 'morality', a human only capability, correct? Correct me if I am misstating your position. You may have already addressed this, but I haven't read your position if you have.
(2) What is your position on feeding meat or meat-containing foods to our pets, and animals kept in zoos, etc?
(3) What is your position on 'testing' medicines, etc. on animals raised specifically for this purpose? In other words, do you believe it is morally acceptable to sacrifice animals in the quest to develope 'safe' medicines for humans?
(4) Fish and seafood constitute a significant percentage of the food intake of humans. I assume, morally, they are awarded the same status as other animals. Do you believe it will be possible to replace these foods with vegetable matter for many of the worlds peoples, eskimos and others that live in cold climates? Can they generate enough income to import vegetables to feed their families if fish and seafood are no longer acceptable foodstuffs?
(5) Do you consider people who raise animals for consumption to be immoral? If not, why not? Are all people in the meat industry immoral, from the truckers that transport the meat to the supermarket employees that sell meat? Are they just 'ignorant' of true morality?
(5) Is it OK to kill insects and rats that envade our homes? (you don't have to eat them ). Are rats given less status than chickens, for instance, and why?

Only a few questions that immediately come to mind, James R.

 

[Jan Ardena]

TW Scott,

In all actuallity cattle are not slaughtered for pleasure, they are slaughtered for sustenance.

That statement is absolute madness. The only time cattle "need" to be slaughtered for consumption, is when there is no other option, and people will die of starvation. That's sustenance. The slaugher houses which slaughters specially reared animals en-masse, does so purely out of greed, and the masses buy the product out of greed, to satisfy their palates.

That we enjoy the taste is not wrong either. Merely a side condition.

Enjoyment is the only reason (apart from above) for the needless slaughter and disgusting treatment of these innocent animals. A little more than a "side condition" I would say.

That people harp on the issue that the only reason cows are killed is becuase steak gives us pleasure is stupid.

What other reason is there?

That is like saying sex is only about the pleasure. The pleasure is just a fringe benefit. A sort of bonus from the cosmos for doing something good for us.

Consensual sex is only about pleasure of one sort or another, even if its done purely for procreation.

Jan.

 

[Light Travelling]

So after all this I offer this. Eating meat is not morally right or wrong. It just is. There are times when is wrong, like human flesh
.

To turn the argument around slightly then - how can you (or anyone) justify the postion that it is acceptable (morally) to eat all other animals accept the human animal. It is clearly a double moral standard with no rational justification. If it is ok to eat other beings than it is OK to eat all other beings, if not then none.

Unless one were to argue a scale of sentience - in which case why draw the line where you draw it and why cant eveyone draw it where they like i.e. vegitarians who eat fish...

 

[TW Scott]

I love how when it comes down to moral decisions people want to simplify a complex issue. It is as if they believe that simplification is always the answer. It is the same people who call simple spanking child abuse. They don't see that their needs to be some complexities in morals. They fail to see that sometimes what seems on the outside to be wrong is not really.

Here is some examples.

Killing another human being is of course morally wrong.

Now imagine a man coming at you brandishing a knife, foaming at the mouth, and screaming "I'll kill you." Now you were minding your business just walking down the street. So when you shoot him in self defense and kill him is that morally wrong? No.

Abusing your child is wrongh without a question.

Now imagine your hard to manage son who continually misbehaves, breaking things and even hurting other children. You have tried the time out, but simple goes rigth back to doing it. You have explained things and even grounded him from play dates but he simply defies your authority. Finally you decide to teach him there are consequences when he punches his cousin and you swat his but six times hard enough he can feel it but gentle enough not to cuase harm. Is that wrong? No.


Now it is clear that some of you have forgotten how to draw a complex line, or perhaps never learned.

Now as for the accusations of logical falacy. The truth is that just becuase it is natural does not neccesarily make it moral, but it doesn't mean it isn't either. It just means it is natural. Now the naturalist argument is not the sole supporting structure of my argument, it is one of several. So harping about it just makes you a nitpicker.

 

[TW Scott]

The truth is, the vast majority of cattle which are slaughtered would not be killed if people did not eat meat. In fact, they would not exist at all, since they are bred solely to be eaten.

Well if we switched to not eating meat they would be slaughtered so you can farm the land they occupy. And don't even attempt to lie and say that is not true.

Eating meat is unnecessary, and results in untold cruelty to cattle in many forms.

That is your view. My view is that it is necessary and as long as they are not abused before death then well there is no problem.

Of course, we can't help it if we enjoy the taste of meat. We can't help it if having a lot of sex is pleasurable. We can't help it if we find pointing a gun at an animal and shooting it to be fun (or can we?). But we can choose not to put our pleasures above the more significant interests of other people or animals.

A cows interest to live is not more significant than mine. In fact to society at all the cow's interest is a nonfactor. Personally I am surprised you'd try such a weak argument.

I am truly sorry to hear that you were abused, TW Scott. Nobody should have to go through that. But wouldn't you have preferred it if you had not had to take matters into your own hands to deal with that situation? Wouldn't it have been good if somebody had protected you?

No, actually, if I hadn't been the one to do what i did I wouldn't have the strength I do today.

Surely you don't believe that every abused child is better off having to fight for themselves, with no help?

Actually it is better if they are not abused at all, but I was making the point that the opressed can fight back and if they choose not to that is their own damn fault. It is not my place to fight battles for a people who will not do so for themselves. If they start an uprising I will do my best to help them, doing everything from sending money to convincing washington to send military aid. Untill then if they are gonna just take the whipping then they must want it.

Here's another guess, for what it's worth. I'm guessing that you were pro-life before you had these personal experiences of abortion. Many pro-lifers assume that women who have abortions kill more or less on a whim, or were not careful enough about getting pregnant in the first place, etc. etc. Sometimes, they discover the real facts and change their minds.

And another wrong answer. I have been a prochoice since I was seven. before then i had no idea what an abortion was so i was decidely nuetral

In the same way, you are pro-meat, and you live in the comfortable delusion that most meat production is not from factory farming. You imagine the Old MacDonald type of farm mentioned by Facial, where animals are well treated and live long and happy lives until they are eventually killed. The reality is very different.

Actually I would have to say your delusional. I have worked a ranch, I know the truth. I am your worst nightmare becuase i won't lie for you. Sure the age of the family farm is gone, but a ranch is not much different today then it was 120 years ago. Hell most of the cowhands still ride horses.

Another disingenuous response from you. Instead of responding with integrity to the point I raised, you attempt once again to caricature my position with a straw man. Why can't you face the actual issues head-on?

Hello it was you with the caricature of me out in the woods with an AK-47 shooting everything that moved. You made no effort to research why the herds in Michigan are managed the way they are. Winter foraging provides limited food and if the herds are too numerous they starve and become diseased. Yes i enjoy hunting and love venison, but I am out there to make sure the least harm is done.

True, but one I am rather unwilling to give up, understandably. Therefore, assuming that I am not going to lay down my life to save the environment, I try to minimise the harmful impacts I have as far as is practical. Giving up eating meat can be difficult, but I think the benefits are worth it.

Hey a vegetarian does not live any longer than a meat eater. It just seems that way becuase a life misery just seems longer. As for less of an impact it is the same impact just in a different way. You're running in place here for no logical reason. Though if you don't want to eat meat then don't. No skin off my back.

In other words, you can provide no solid evidence that factory farms are a minority in terms of meat production in the USA. I assert once again that your claim is false, and invite you to provide evidence to the contrary, if it indeed exists.

Do you're own research and prove that 51% or more of this country's meat is factory farmed. You made the original claim that they were most and i called you on the carpet. Since then you have been dancing

For beliefs which need no defence, you sure are spending a lot of time and effort defending them.

No just attacking yours.

But you said she decided to return to eating meat based on my comments. I am still most interested in what led her to that decision, if what you say is true.

No I said she ate a triple whopper just to spite you amnd she doesn't even know you. Plus she is back on tuna and chicken.

Ok. Would you change your mind further if I took the time and effort to show you that factory farming is not a "small part of the meat industry", but in fact is the major part of it?

It isn't but you are free to try. Even if you do prove it however I will just campaign to get the factory farms gone and back to ranches.

As I said before, it may be (and I don't know) that you live in an unusual area, in which factory farming does not occur. But I doubt it. I think that if you go to your local McDonald's or Burger King, the meat you will be served there has more than likely come from a mass-production factory farm. It may not even be produced from locally-farmed beef, but might be shipped from across the nation.

No, I live in a typical area, that is your problem. You take a small percentage and magnify it inot the whole. And i know where BK and McD get their beef, i worked at one of the ranches. So you can kiss your assumptions goodbye.

 

[kazakhan]

But in fact, I am only talking about eating or not eating meat in this thread. Your extrapolation to all other actions is invalid. For example, I enjoy playing tennis, but that doesn't mean I think everybody should play tennis. Why? Because whether or not you play tennis doesn't create net harm. But eating meat causes untold harm. Therefore, whether you eat meat is morally significant, whereas whether you play tennis doesn't really matter.

In fact, I am quite libertarian. If your actions don't harm others (people or animals), then chances are that I won't want to stop you from engaging in them. It is only where there is harm that I start to worry.

And where do the strings for your tennis racquet come from? Did any cows die or did you make sure the strings were synthetic?

To turn the argument around slightly then - how can you (or anyone) justify the postion that it is acceptable (morally) to eat all other animals accept the human animal. It is clearly a double moral standard with no rational justification. If it is ok to eat other beings than it is OK to eat all other beings, if not then none.

Unless one were to argue a scale of sentience - in which case why draw the line where you draw it and why cant eveyone draw it where they like i.e. vegitarians who eat fish...

I wouldn't be adverse to eating a human or whales, dolphins or koala bears it's all meat. With humans though the health risk is much greater as far as I know. There is nothing wrong with people drawing their own lines of course. The problem is people like James R pushing their belief on everyone else, from where I sit he looks like a religous zealot.

 

[Light Travelling]

But these examples you hold up are ridiculous.

Killing another human being is of course morally wrong.

Now imagine a man coming at you brandishing a knife, foaming at the mouth, and screaming "I'll kill you." Now you were minding your business just walking down the street. So when you shoot him in self defense and kill him is that morally wrong? No.
.

Yes, it is morally wrong to kill this man, but in the split second it happens, it is not a moral judgment call it is a self preservation instinct that takes over. Society at large and the law recognises this. Society also accepts that it is not fair to expect people to lay down their lives for their morals. What is legal and what is moral are not the same thing (nor should they be).

Also, the situation you set up is ridiculous – A man with a knife attacking a man with a gun? But given this situation why not shoot the man in the leg, preventing the attack but avoiding death?

There is no complex line here – killing humans is morally wrong. Fullstop.

Abusing your child is wrongh without a question.

Now imagine your hard to manage son who continually misbehaves, breaking things and even hurting other children. You have tried the time out, but simple goes rigth back to doing it. You have explained things and even grounded him from play dates but he simply defies your authority. Finally you decide to teach him there are consequences when he punches his cousin and you swat his but six times hard enough he can feel it but gentle enough not to cause harm. Is that wrong? No.
.

Here you mix two completely different issues. You start with child abuse, then rapidly move on to corporal punishment.

Child abuse is intended solely for the harm of the child / gratification of the abuser. It can be physical, mental, or emotional.
Corporal punishment is for the correcting the behaviour of a child which may be for their long term good. Or as punishment for crimes committed. Do you have the same judgments for emotional and mental correctional punishments?

Again no complex line; Child abuse morally wrong; corporal punishment morally right.
(again legal and moral are not the same)


So in summary, although these actions may be rationalised or even legalised, from a moral standpoint;
Killing humans – always morally wrong
Child abuse – always morally wrong
Eating other beings – always morally wrong
corporal punishment –always morally right

No complex lines to be drawn – issues are only made complex by the confused…

The truth is that just becuase it is natural does not neccesarily make it moral,..

I would say that morals are what takes us away from our ‘natural’ animalistic behaviour. Your sentence should read “The truth is that just becuase it is natural does not neccesarily make it immoral”.

Things natural for animals to do;
Stealing – food, territory etc
Killing
Fighting – food, territory etc
Fucking in public
Masturbating in public – monkeys (the dirty little….)
Child abuse
Killing own young
Cannibalism

 

[Light Travelling]

I wouldn't be adverse to eating a human or whales, dolphins or koala bears it's all meat. With humans though the health risk is much greater as far as I know.

Would you then, be adverse to breeding humans for meat?

and how would you rationalise any difference? (between a cow farm and a human farm) - and dont say cos we can, cos we can do either if we wanted. We could be alsmot self sufficient....I am sure with the right hormones and antibiotic injections and dbreeding in the right conditions, the health risk could be eliminated.

Or have you realised there is something wrong yet?

 

[john smith]

Eating meat is not morally wrong.

Morality is the wrong terminology, and in my belief cannot really be applied to the sorts of food substance' one eats. (unless of course your a canniball ).

 

[Light Travelling]

. (unless of course your a canniball ).

Why the distinction - and how do you rationalise that?

 

[kazakhan]

Would you then, be adverse to breeding humans for meat?

Well of course, eating a human if need be is one thing breeding humans for food is a whole other issue.

and how would you rationalise any difference? (between a cow farm and a human farm) - and dont say cos we can, cos we can do either if we wanted. We could be alsmot self sufficient....I am sure with the right hormones and antibiotic injections and dbreeding in the right conditions, the health risk could be eliminated.

Easy, humans have a right to life and freedom animals do not.

Or have you realised there is something wrong yet?

There's something wrong alright
Where is the line drawn, should humans not eat insects?
Despite reading this entire thread I haven't seen a single reason to stop eating meat.

Morality is the wrong terminology...

At least until vegans rule the earth

 

[Light Travelling]

Where is the line drawn, should humans not eat insects?

They do eat insects.

Easy, humans have a right to life and freedom animals do not

But where does this right come from?

Evolution maybe - natural selection. But evolution continues, and to what end. IMO evolution continues to transcend our animal nature. Devolution is regressing to behave like animals; evolution is transcending our natural impulses for a higher ideal of right and wrong - morals.

Therefore :- eating meat is anti human evolution. The growing trend to vegetarianism is the gradual evolution of the human species.

 

[kazakhan]

They do eat insects.

Are you saying it's ok to eat insects but not animals? If so why would a cow have a right to life and not an ant?

But where does this right come from?

Humans are capable of defending their right to life and freedom animals are not of course.

Evolution maybe - natural selection. But evolution continues, and to what end. IMO evolution continues to transcend our animal nature. Devolution is regressing to behave like animals; evolution is transcending our natural impulses for a higher ideal of right and wrong - morals.

Gibberish!
As if humans are not a natural part of this environment.

Therefore :- eating meat is anti human evolution. The growing trend to vegetarianism is the gradual evolution of the human species.

Bah humbug trendsetters would masturbate with cheese graters if told it would improve some mediocre part of their life.
The real problem is there is just not enough variety of meat on the menu

 

[James R]

2inquisitive:

Perhaps you could give all of us a little clearer picture of what you consider moral and immoral, James R.

(1) I assume that it is OK for some animals (omnivores and carnivores) to eat other animals. I also assume the reason is those animals haven't developed 'morality', a human only capability, correct? Correct me if I am misstating your position. You may have already addressed this, but I haven't read your position if you have.

In general, it is ok for non-human animals to eat other animals. In the case of carnivores, it is eat meat or die - not really a choice. There are not many animals which are omnivores. Those that are (apart from human beings) generally do not have the lattitude or the intellectual capacity to choose whether or not to eat meat.

It is interesting to see this particular double-standard trotted out by meat eaters. On the one hand, they say it is ok to eat animals because animals aren't as intelligent as humans. But in the next breath they expect all animals to reason about morality to the same extent to which humans are capable.

(2) What is your position on feeding meat or meat-containing foods to our pets, and animals kept in zoos, etc?

As above. For carnivores, there really is no choice. It is eat meat or die.

(3) What is your position on 'testing' medicines, etc. on animals raised specifically for this purpose? In other words, do you believe it is morally acceptable to sacrifice animals in the quest to develope 'safe' medicines for humans?

I think it can be justifiable. Killing one creature to save many can be morally justifable. I support having rigorous ethical standards procedures to ensure that unnecessary and unjustified suffering of animals does not occur. If testing can be done in other ways than using animals, then it should be done that way, unless there are compelling reasons to use animals. And if testing on animals is unnecessary or frivolous, it should not be allowed at all.

(4) Fish and seafood constitute a significant percentage of the food intake of humans. I assume, morally, they are awarded the same status as other animals. Do you believe it will be possible to replace these foods with vegetable matter for many of the worlds peoples, eskimos and others that live in cold climates? Can they generate enough income to import vegetables to feed their families if fish and seafood are no longer acceptable foodstuffs?

Yes, it would be possible to replace fish with other kinds of food. Questions of income may arise, of course. Fishermen would be out of business. But when slavery was abolished, slave traders were out of a job, too. I'm sure they complained bitterly about their lost incomes, but other factors were considered more important by civilised society.

(5) Do you consider people who raise animals for consumption to be immoral?

Yes. My position in this thread is that eating meat is immoral, regardless of how the meat is raised.

Are all people in the meat industry immoral, from the truckers that transport the meat to the supermarket employees that sell meat? Are they just 'ignorant' of true morality?

The vast majority of people never seriously consider this moral question at all. They regard the packaged meat they buy at the supermarket as no different from the bag of potato chips next to it in the trolley.

There are, of course, degrees of blame to be attached. Driving a truck is peripheral to the main problem. I would rather condemn the truck driver for eating meat, and thus directly supporting the existence of the meat industry, than for trying to earn a living in the transport industry.

The bottom line here is that if there was no demand from immoral meat consumers, there would be no need for truck drivers to carry the meat to the supermarket. So, the consumers are most to blame for the very existence of the industry.

As for those who own and operate factory farms - that is a separate issue. Not only do they support an immoral industry, but they also wilfully and directly cause even greater harm than might otherwise be caused, and all in the name of their own profit.

(5) Is it OK to kill insects and rats that envade our homes? (you don't have to eat them ). Are rats given less status than chickens, for instance, and why?

If you want to start ranking animals, that may be a difficult process. Is a rat worth less than a cow, intrinsically? You tell me. How about a rat compared to a fly?

I do not advocate the unnecessary killing of any creature, whether it be mammal or insect. Whether killing is sometimes justified by necessity is a separate question, which we can discuss in a separate thread, if you like. Meat eating is, of course, totally unnecessary for human beings, so the issue doesn't arise in the current context.

 

[James R]

kazakhan:

And where do the strings for your tennis racquet come from? Did any cows die or did you make sure the strings were synthetic?

I choose synthetic strings.

I wouldn't be adverse to eating a human or whales, dolphins or koala bears it's all meat. With humans though the health risk is much greater as far as I know.

I doubt you eat meat for health reasons. I think that's most likely just a rationalisation. I also doubt you are aware of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet.

There is nothing wrong with people drawing their own lines of course. The problem is people like James R pushing their belief on everyone else, from where I sit he looks like a religous zealot.

That's because nobody likes being challenged. Fundamentally, you think you're a good person. Therefore, your assumption is that your actions must be ethical, because you wouldn't knowingly engage in evil practices, would you? Therefore, meat eating must be ok, because you do it and you're a good person. That's how the reasoning goes.

I'm not "pushing" my ideas, here. Or, at least, no more than you are. I didn't start this thread. I am simply discussing the question: is meat eating morally wrong?

The fact that you can't produce a response to refute my answer to that question doesn't make me a zealot. Your attempt to negate my argument by claiming that I am somehow unhinged says more about your own lack of honesty than it says about me.

If you truly think I am a zealot, then you should be able to point to all the things I have said which are untrue or patently unreasonable in this thread. I invite you to do just that. Show that I am unhinged and fanatical, and that my asking to you to act morally is unreasonable.

Well of course, eating a human if need be is one thing breeding humans for food is a whole other issue.

Why? You think breeding cows for food is fine. Why are humans different? Just because you happen to be human and you wouldn't want it to happen to you? Why does your sympathy not extent to other animals, then?

Easy, humans have a right to life and freedom animals do not.

Now I'm beginning to think you haven't read the whole thread, either. Please do me the courtesy of reading it before you reply, since you're raising points I have already dealt with at length.

Then tell me: On what basis do you believe humans ought to have this right to life and freedom and a cow ought not?

There's something wrong alright
Where is the line drawn, should humans not eat insects?

What do you think the potential moral issues are for humans eating insects? What do you think my response would be to this issue? This is a good test of whether you're actually following the relevant arguments or not.

Despite reading this entire thread I haven't seen a single reason to stop eating meat.

Funny that, since I've given several arguments, and in a nicely-numbered list, in at least two posts I can think of. How do you respond to them?

Humans are capable of defending their right to life and freedom animals are not of course.

For somebody who claims to have read the thread, you surprise me, since this very question was addressed only one or two pages prior to the current post. Go look at my response on this issue, then get back to me.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Well if we switched to not eating meat they would be slaughtered so you can farm the land they occupy. And don't even attempt to lie and say that is not true.

I would be content to let the existing cattle live out full and happy lives. I would simply stop the breeding of new cattle for meat. See how silly your argument is?

My view is that it is necessary and as long as they are not abused before death then well there is no problem.

I note once again that you have failed to answer my question on why you consider abuse before death to be a problem. You seem to have double standards. (If you've conveniently forgotten again, read my previous reply to you.)

A cows interest to live is not more significant than mine.

If you're referring to your interest to live, I never claimed that it was, and this is a straw man. On the other, hand if you are claiming that your desire to eat the cow overrides its right to live, then you are morally twisted.

In fact to society at all the cow's interest is a nonfactor.

Please don't lump in ethical people with your meat-loving crowd. I find it offensive.

Wouldn't it have been good if somebody had protected you?

No, actually, if I hadn't been the one to do what i did I wouldn't have the strength I do today.

I don't believe you. In your earlier post, you expressed disappointment that Protective Services (or whatever you call the people responsible for child protection) did not help you. If you really thought that everybody had to "take their rights", you would not want protective agencies to protect the rights of children. You would want a dog-eat-dog world. The fact that you mention that somebody ought to have helped you belies your own argument.

Actually it is better if they are not abused at all, but I was making the point that the opressed can fight back and if they choose not to that is their own damn fault. It is not my place to fight battles for a people who will not do so for themselves.

How do you expect an abused child to fight back against a powerful adult male? It took you until you were almost an adult to have the ability to even try to do that. Essentially, you are saying children are fair game for abuse until and unless they can protect themselves. What a harsh world it is that you advocate.

Actually I would have to say your delusional. I have worked a ranch, I know the truth.

You speak for all meat producers in America because you've worked on one or two ranches? Where does this omniscience of yours come from?

I assert again that your view of the meat industry you support is skewed and unrealistic.

Hey a vegetarian does not live any longer than a meat eater.

Yet another unsupported claim from you. And again, you are wrong.

Do you're own research and prove that 51% or more of this country's meat is factory farmed. You made the original claim that they were most and i called you on the carpet. Since then you have been dancing

I invite you to do the research, since you clearly have no clue, and I know you won't take my word for it.

No I said she ate a triple whopper just to spite you amnd she doesn't even know you. Plus she is back on tuna and chicken.

Please tell her that tuna and chicken are meat, which means she never was a vegetarian in the first place.

Ok. Would you change your mind further if I took the time and effort to show you that factory farming is not a "small part of the meat industry", but in fact is the major part of it?

It isn't but you are free to try. Even if you do prove it however I will just campaign to get the factory farms gone and back to ranches.

Before I waste my time on this, you will need to explain why you regard the method of meat production as relevant. Why do you care how your meat is produced? You're happy to kill animals for food. So why care how they are treated before they are killed? Why worry about the processes by which they are killed?

 

[James R]

A few more references for you, TW Scott, to get you started:

Barely 5 percent of U.S. farms now raise 54 percent of the country’s beef and dairy cattle. Corporations now produce 98 percent of all poultry. Small to mid-size family livestock farms are going the way of the dodo. While “local food movements” and a resurgent interest in grass-fed and free-range animal production are gaining traction and deserve our full support, they will never be enough to stem the “blood-dimmed tide” of the livestock industry.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2525/

The Dayton Daily News has released a six part series on megafarms in Ohio, covering a wide range of issues dealing with factory farms. The series includes 20 articles and opinion pieces, and gives voice to a wide variety of stakeholders. Part I gives an overview of livestock farming trends in 11 states, and a look at the hidden costs behind America's quest for cheap and processed food. Part II details the jurisdictional and budgetary maze associated with permitting and regulating livestock operations, and describes some of the environmental and animal rights activism spawned by large animal farms. Part III describes some of the economic trends in livestock farming, and profiles several farm families faced with the choice of growing larger, investing in their own processing equipment, becoming a contract producer, or going out of business. art IV highlights the sometimes uneasy relationship between large farms and their neighbors, and highlights some of the economic advantages of returning to grass-feeding of cows. Part V details how communities across the country are weighing the benefits of modern livestock farming against the costs to the environment and rural way of life. Part VI describes a somewhat ironic trend: even as many Americans are giving up farming, Dutch and German farmers are immigrating to the Midwest in droves to open large animal farms, drawn here by relatively cheap land and tax regulations.

http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/project/farm/index.html
http://www.und.edu/misc/ndrural/Factory Farming.htm

US Department of Agriculture statistic that in 1999 two percent of the hog farms in the country produced over 46 percent of the total number of hogs.

90% of the nation's poultry production is controlled by 10 companies.

http://www.mercola.com/beef/benefits.htm
(see this site for many other quick statistics, too).

Worldwide, an estimated 258 million tons of meat were produced in 2004, up 2 percent over 2003. (See Figure 2-1, p. 25.) Global meat production has increased more than fivefold since 1950 and more than doubled since the 1970s. [size=+2]Industrial farming systems today generate 74 percent of the world’s poultry products, 50 percent of all pork, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs.[/size]

Everywhere it is introduced, factory farming creates ecological and public health disasters, from new animal and human diseases to air and water pollution to the loss of livestock genetic resources. Factory farms crowd hundreds of thousands of animals together with little natural light or fresh air, creating a ripe environment for breeding disease. Waste from the animals is collected in large lagoons where it can seep into nearby waterways, contaminate groundwater, and spread a sickening stench for miles. Workers in meat processing plants work long hours in miserable conditions and have among the highest accident rates in the United States. All of this is done with an eye towards minimizing costs and maximizing profits with little regard for human, environmental, or animal welfare.

Rethinking the global meat industry is not just about keeping factory farms safe from disease outbreaks and mitigating their environmental effects. The real challenge, and the real reward, will come from taking a different approach to the way we raise food. Reversing the factory farm tide will require thinking about farming systems as more than a source of economic wealth. We must recognize that preserving prosperous family farms and their landscapes and raising healthy and humanely treated animals are their own form of affluence.

http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/sow/2006/toc/2/

 

[przyk]

I eat meat. I am immoral. The end.

Pity we can't simply grow flesh in the lab, without having to grow a whole pig/cow/etc.

 

[2inquisitive]

James R:

I doubt you eat meat for health reasons. I think that's most likely just a rationalisation. I also doubt you are aware of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet.

Perhaps you can give us some links to scientific studies that support your statement. And please, James R, no more of the crackpot sites with an agenda, such as promoting books and asking for donations. You disdain such sites in Physics & Math and Pseudoscience, so why do you link to them here?
Here are the results of some studies I found:
Vegetarian diet and longevity
In "Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies" [27], six major studies (three in Britain, one in Germany, one in U.S and one in Italy) of this kind were cross examined. It was found that the mortality ratio was the lowest in fish eaters (0.82) followed by occasional meat eaters (0.84) and vegetarians (0.84) which was then followed by regular meat eaters (1.0) and vegans (1.0). In "Mortality in British vegetarians" [28], it was concluded that "British vegetarians have low mortality compared with the general population. Their death rates are similar to those of comparable non-vegetarians, suggesting that much of this benefit may be attributed to non-dietary lifestyle factors such as a low prevalence of smoking and a generally high socio-economic status, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

James R:

The vast majority of people never seriously consider this moral question at all.

I find this speculation difficult to believe. Do you actually think the vast majority of people never seriously think about it? Wouldn't THIS statement be more accurate?...'The vast majority of people never seriously consider this a moral question at all.'

James R, are you a vegetarian or a vegan? You do realize that fructarians may consider YOU immoral. Some of my neighbors think people who do not attend church regularly are immoral. Isn't morality relative?

 

[kazakhan]

I doubt you eat meat for health reasons. I think that's most likely just a rationalisation. I also doubt you are aware of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet.

I doubt you comprehend what you quoted of my post. I did not claim any health benefit to eating meat. Why would I not be well aware of the so called health benefits of a vegetarian diet. There's plenty of clowns such as yourself pointing it out.

That's because nobody likes being challenged. Fundamentally, you think you're a good person. Therefore, your assumption is that your actions must be ethical, because you wouldn't knowingly engage in evil practices, would you? Therefore, meat eating must be ok, because you do it and you're a good person. That's how the reasoning goes.

How would know what I think of my self? You are unbelievably presumptuous. No I do not consider myself a good person but neither do I consider myself bad person.

I'm not "pushing" my ideas, here. Or, at least, no more than you are. I didn't start this thread. I am simply discussing the question: is meat eating morally wrong?

You're kidding right? Have you not implied all humans should refrain from eating meat? I haven't pushed anything I don't care what people eat or don't eat.

The fact that you can't produce a response to refute my answer to that question doesn't make me a zealot. Your attempt to negate my argument by claiming that I am somehow unhinged says more about your own lack of honesty than it says about me.

Lack of honesty, you crack me up, fair dinkum
Ok I haven't specifically addressed the question, nor will I, I think it's lame.

If you truly think I am a zealot, then you should be able to point to all the things I have said which are untrue or patently unreasonable in this thread. I invite you to do just that. Show that I am unhinged and fanatical, and that my asking to you to act morally is unreasonable.

Why do you think slavery was abolished in the USA?

Got any reasons for this moral imperative, that I haven't already refuted previously in the thread?

The reason to convert to my line of thinking, in case you missed it, is that my arguments are cogent and persuasive.

Let's start with one - you. Then we can both convert the remaining 5,999,999,998 together.

Etc...

Why? You think breeding cows for food is fine. Why are humans different? Just because you happen to be human and you wouldn't want it to happen to you? Why does your sympathy not extent to other animals, then?

I've already said we humans are capable of defending our precieved rights. When the cows take up arms or start whining about their lot in life then I'll reconsider my choice there's always other meat

Now I'm beginning to think you haven't read the whole thread, either. Please do me the courtesy of reading it before you reply, since you're raising points I have already dealt with at length.

Errr yes I have told a fib, I missed page 15. Do you the courtesy eh? You have failed in this regard in a thread of mine among others however I have now caught up.

Then tell me: On what basis do you believe humans ought to have this right to life and freedom and a cow ought not?

I didn't say I believe they ought to have those rights. I stated that humans do have those rights as humans can defend these rights.

What do you think the potential moral issues are for humans eating insects? What do you think my response would be to this issue? This is a good test of whether you're actually following the relevant arguments or not.

None. That insects are not sentient but why are they not? Good for you.

Funny that, since I've given several arguments, and in a nicely-numbered list, in at least two posts I can think of. How do you respond to them?

You just quoted my response. Just because you've posted several reasons to not eat meat does mean I should accept it. Nor am I going to go over each reason as I don't believe there is anything immoral in eating meat. You can reason till your blue in the face but until someone holds a gun to my head I will continue to eat meat.

For somebody who claims to have read the thread, you surprise me, since this very question was addressed only one or two pages prior to the current post. Go look at my response on this issue, then get back to me.

It was, oh silly me.