Eating Meat and Animal Rights

[zeno]

I'm sort of halfway between meat eater and vegetarian. I still eat "wild caught" fish but I think the factory farm system is cruel and I no longer want to support it. I eat a lot more fruits and vegetables now and I have to say, I feel much healthier -- no more hormone/antibiotic-treated meat.

[Inspector]

Animals eat other animals. What's the source of your concern about the matter?

[FeatherFall]

Inspector, was your question directed at Zeno?

I can't answer for anyone else, but I would like to act as an agent of suffering as little as possible. Because of this, I am beginning to look at cost effective ways to minimize animal suffering while maintaining a healthy diet. Animals don't have rights, but I don't see taking action to reduce the suffering I cause them as a sacrafice in every case.

[JMeganSnow]

Btw, Paul Hsieh posted some interesting research on this issue on NoodleFood: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/04/animal-minds.html

The flaw I see with this type of research is that many animals display tremendous capacity for memorization, so showing them their own toys over and over again is also not an appropriate experiment, either. But it is intriguing.

I don't think there's necessarily a huge gap between the abilities of other higher animals and man. There is more likely to be a gentle continuum. As many people know, a tiny difference in initial conditions can produce a HUGE difference in results.

[Inspector]

Inspector, was your question directed at Zeno?

Yes, his post started as a separate thread, which was later merged with this one. So my question was directed at him, specifically.

[DavidOdden]

I can't answer for anyone else, but I would like to act as an agent of suffering as little as possible. Because of this, I am beginning to look at cost effective ways to minimize animal suffering while maintaining a healthy diet. Animals don't have rights, but I don't see taking action to reduce the suffering I cause them as a sacrafice in every case.

I have no objection to picking a less uncomfortable method of raising and slaughtering animals, at least the warm-blooded ones. But the options are pretty limited. For example, for birds and mammals, you basically have to farm the critters. Sure you can do out and shoot deer, but there are not all that many grocery stores (i.e. close to none) that actually offer wild deer. Beef that lives on the open prairie and is lovingly snuffed to become my dinner is charming, but this isn't obviously a viable solution in the long run. The bottom line then is that when hippie-beef is 50 cents a pound more expensive for a comparable cut than factory beef, that is a self-sacrifice, especially when based on the presumption that hippie-beef is "less cruel". As a consumer, have you developed a way of quantifying the cruelty-quotient for competing chickens, pigs, sheeps or cows? I haven't. And I'm morally certain that current (technologically primitive) practices of harvesting wild fish is not tenable in the long run, and that farming is essential, just as picking wild grass seeds is not a tenable way for man to exist and make bread, he must plant and control the growth of useful grains.

[Inspector]

I can't answer for anyone else, but I would like to act as an agent of suffering as little as possible.

I think you should think through your position to both its origin and conclusion. You're killing and eating them - if you're willing to do that, then how can you be uncomfortable with the comfort of the animals per se? The entire point of such creatures is to grow into meat and be slaughtered. If you'll allow me to go out on a limb here, it sounds like you're feeling guilty for this - but why?

It's not like anyone farming them is going specifically out of their way to cause unnecessary suffering. At least I've never heard of such a thing. "Extra-miserable beef."

Take a look at what the Objectivist ethics have to say on animal rights and why torturing them is wrong. It's not because they have any inherent right to be free from suffering at our hands (they don't - they are resources for us to exploit, like any others). It's not that it is immoral to cause them suffering per se, as they don't have rights. It's immoral to irrationally want to cause suffering for its own sake.

So long as you aren't doing that, you really shouldn't worry about whether your food suffered or not. Unless it affects the flavor or price or something.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Inspector

[DavidOdden]

At least I've never heard of such a thing. "Extra-miserable beef."

No, the approach is to package on the opposite end of the scale: extra-happy beef. $150 per lb.

[FeatherFall]

I've said before, animals don't have rights - this is an issue of personal preference. It's fine that you gentlemen consume flesh with no thought to the life taken. In fact, I don't feel guilt when I eat meat. But I do find pride in making myself an extension of a benevolent universe; when I am able to affirdably distance myself from farming practices that require a life of suffering on the part of the consumed, I am willing to do so.

Why waste the cost of a bullet to put down an injured animal? I don't belive anyone here is honestly trying to insinuate that it is immoral to demonstrate concern for a suffering creature.

No, the approach is to package on the opposite end of the scale: extra-happy beef. $150 per lb.

Did you see the price of those hot dogs!?

[DavidOdden]

when I am able to affirdably distance myself from farming practices that require a life of suffering on the part of the consumed, I am willing to do so.

My question is, what are the actual, practical, down-to-earth consequences of this decision. Unless you lovingly hand-rais and slaughter your own cows, in what way can you conclude that one product is better than another, from the POV of animal suffering? That is, how much research do you actually go into about burger production?

[FeatherFall]

I do very little research. This leads me to change few of my habits. For instance, I eat fewer pork products. I pay a few cents extra for eggs from cage free chickens even though the improvement to their lives is next to negligible. In the future, I may decide on a reduction of most meats from my diet; but not until I know I can do it affordably and healthfully.

It would be easy for me trust in a company that inspects farming practices and approves certain products. Unfortunately, I don't know of any that are adequate.

[FeatherFall]

On a side note, it appears to be possible to lead a healthy life as a vegan, if you have the cash and know what you are doing. Mac Danzig is a professional athelete, and a vegan.

[Inspector]

But I do find pride in making myself an extension of a benevolent universe

I strongly disagree with this idea - it is not benevolence, but naive decadence to think that nature can or ought to work that way. It does not - nature is bloody in tooth and claw.

And as David correctly points out, it necessarily involves costs and sacrifices materially. Although I am more concerned with the spiritual sacrifice involved.

I don't expect you'll agree and don't care to make a giant discussion of it, so I'll bow out at this point.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Inspector

[Maximus]

Meat is good.

Animals have no rights.

[SpaceChimp007]

Meat is good.

Animals have no rights.

I agree that meat tastes good and understand why animals have no rights.

I do choose to be a vegan in regards to my food choice though. The comfort I get from eating a vegan diet which I do enjoy is close to the comfort I would get from eating a little bit better tasting diet consisting of both vegan products and meat products. Knowing that the animals I ate were mistreated and to some extent tortured, this is what tipped the scales in favor of becoming a vegan. I would have no problem eating meat if I thought I'd be happier doing so but since I decided to adhere to a vegan diet, that situation has yet to arrise.

I'm not a member of man-hating PETA or ALF and if someones enjoys wearing a mink coat or hunting big game, I have no problem with that either. I also support the testing of animals to make man's life better.

I know Rand was not much of an advocate of charity and this seems to me to be along the same lines. Something that is not the duty of any man but well within the accepted behavior of an Objectivist if it helps him or her live a happier life.

I'm not sold on it being considered irrational to abstain from meat from a strictly "animal cruelty" perspective. My food budget has gone down since I've become a vegan and my health has not changed for better or worse. There are no detremental effects of becoming a vegan if you take the time to educate yourself about the dietary substitutes necessary. It could very well be something I'm missing and if so, I look forward to finding out what!

[gags]

I know Rand was not much of an advocate of charity...

Rand believed that charity was not a moral duty or a primary virtue, but she wasn't against charity for those who deserved it.

[Inspector]

To add slightly to my point, the term "benevolent universe" does not mean that the world and everything in it is fuzzy and loves us and we should love it back and give it a hug and fuss about its feelings (especially those of our food!) - it means that our faculty of reason gives us the ability to live and thrive in it. Which, in the case of the bloody, violent, animal kingdom, means to triumph over it and dominate it - to conquer it by overcoming its brute force with our use of reason applied to force - a superior weapon that it cannot possibly hope to match.

General indifference to the living conditions of food is not the same thing as deliberate, sadistic cruelty. While the latter is immoral, the former is in fact demanded by reason - it is irrational and decadent to think we ought to be morally squeamish about what kind of life is lead by the things which we slaughter and devour. Things which are metaphysically incapable of returning such concerns. The equation of their pain with human pain (and the subsequent assignment of a moral status to it) is an error.

Ironically, it is the same error committed by the sadists - as someone truly indifferent to animal feelings would be incapable of receiving sadistic pleasure from them: their feelings are only the automatic responses of instinctual automatons. But then, sadists aren't exactly the sanest of people.

It is right and proper to recoil from and condemn sadism in all its forms, but this does not necessitate concern for the feelings of animals - most especially food animals.

(I'll note that tame pets are a different context, although people do tend to anthropomorphize those as well)

Edited April 23, 2008 by Inspector

[Inspector]

I do choose to be a vegan in regards to my food choice though.

While I don't agree with your position, I will say it is at least the more consistent, logical conclusion of featherfall's premises. Eating animals at all necessitates the use of force against them and the "suffering" that must come with that.

But what you both don't realize is that there is a still more logically consistent position - that all human existence and civilization necessitates, in some way, shape, or form, the use of force against animals and the "suffering" that must come with that.

You might want to say, "well I'll do it if it's me or them." But it's always, in principle, "you or them." That is the very metaphysical nature of the beast, as it were.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Inspector

[SpaceChimp007]

My question is, what are the actual, practical, down-to-earth consequences of this decision.

The practical consequences of this decision is, primarily, FeatherFall will feel happier knowing his or her dollar does not contribute to the suffering of animals. In addition to that, the farmer who raises animals in a humane way will be rewarded with $ by providing a good that is desired by the consumer while the farmer who engages in the unacceptable treatment of their livestock, gets punished by losing $.

Unless you lovingly hand-rais and slaughter your own cows, in what way can you conclude that one product is better than another, from the POV of animal suffering? That is, how much research do you actually go into about burger production?

I know a considerable amount There are a number of NPOs that do this for us. Each agency has a unique list of criteria that the farm must abide by in order to be recognized by that particular agency as being certified humane. As far as knowing from the POV of animal suffering, this is fairly easy to determine. Animals dislike starving to death, dehydrating to death and being tortured to death. Farms that choose to treat animals this way, will lose an otherwise valuable certification (not to say that this will cost them more $ by losing it as clearly more profitable for the likes of Foster Farms and Tyson to continue in their ways).

Because of these NPOs, FeatherFall and those like him or her now know which burger producer to buy from in order to know that they did not buy from a farmer who treats his or her burger producing cattle in an inhumane way. The actual fact of the matter is that the consumer needs to undergo very little research. The consumer simply needs to decide which agency meets their requirements, find out what store sells that certified product (which is available from the NPO's site) and then drive on over and eat- guilt free!

[SpaceChimp007]

While I don't agree with your position, I will say it is at least the more consistent, logical conclusion of featherfall's premises. Eating animals at all necessitates the use of force against them and the "suffering" that must come with that.

That's why I try and limit my consumption of animals.

But what you both don't realize is that there is a still more logically consistent position - that all human existence and civilization necessitates, in some way, shape, or form, the use of force against animals and the "suffering" that must come with that.

You might want to say, "well I'll do it if it's me or them." But it's always, in principle, "you or them." That is the very metaphysical nature of the beast, as it were.

I've never thought too much about this but you are probably right regarding this. However, I don't feel that all amounts of animal suffering are created equal to my happiness. I therefore try to limit my meat consumptions while happily admitting to the fact that I engage in behavior that causes animals suffering in order to make me happy. It is just that driving to work and watching gnats explode on my truck's windshield is not that much of a concern when measured against the great deal of utility I get from driving to work as opposed to walking.

My happiness always takes precedence over animals. It just so happens that sometimes an animal's happiness contributes to my happiness and sways my decision and I act accordingly. I don't see the harm whether or not it's always "you or them".

[DavidOdden]

The practical consequences of this decision is, primarily, FeatherFall will feel happier knowing his or her dollar does not contribute to the suffering of animals.

Nah, that's just irrational mystical emotionalism. He should only feel good about something that he has accomplished, and caving in to mob mentality is not an accomplishment. I mean, assuming that a rational man will not seek to inflict unnecessary suffering, is there any rational way to implement that principle (which is morally correct) in terms of one's meat buying? I'm saying that really, there isn't. Steaks are not honestly marketed as "Product of torture" versus "Product of being lovingly talked to death". If I bought a cow carcass from my cousin, since I know him, I'd know what kind of life the cow had. Otherwise, from a practical POV, there are no distinctions that a rational person can make that pertained to the life of the animal.

I grant you that there are lots of claims, because there is a bit market for claims. I wouldn't believe any hippy joint that sells "cruelty-free" lamb chops, unless there were some reputable board of inspectors (not Inspectors) who observed the process and ascertained that certain published methods were rigorously adhered to. Hence this is largely a non-issue, from a moral perspective. This is kind like the organic crap that we suffered through decades ago. Eventually there may develop credible market certification and widespread availability, but again, look at the price of organic and conventional food -- almost never is organic competitive with inorganic. And the diferences in price are not trivial. So a rational man would simply realize that they should buy the best cheap chicken that they can find. Now on grounds of quality, I like to go to the butcher's shop and buy a somewhat more expensive but actually better quality chicken once in a while. I've never asked whether those chickens are tortured, and don't plan to. They make better barbecue.

[zeno]

There's a funny essay written by a novelist/essayist-turned-reporter who's sent by Gourmet Magazine to cover the Maine Lobster Festival. He generally hates tourist venues and he loathes the MLF. So instead of covering the festival and confronted by his own feelings regarding the World's Largest Lobster Cooker he turns the article into a moral inquiry concerning the ethics of boiling lobsters alive. Great essay I remember I found his philosophical definitions and framing to be convenient too. I'll have to re-read now. FYI The essay was "Consider the Lobster" by David Foster Wallace

[SpaceChimp007]

Nah, that's just irrational mystical emotionalism. He should only feel good about something that he has accomplished, and caving in to mob mentality is not an accomplishment. I mean, assuming that a rational man will not seek to inflict unnecessary suffering, is there any rational way to implement that principle (which is morally correct) in terms of one's meat buying? I'm saying that really, there isn't. Steaks are not honestly marketed as "Product of torture" versus "Product of being lovingly talked to death". If I bought a cow carcass from my cousin, since I know him, I'd know what kind of life the cow had. Otherwise, from a practical POV, there are no distinctions that a rational person can make that pertained to the life of the animal.

I act in a way that reflects my values. My integrity would be compromised if I bought meat from those people who did not raise it in a way I deemed humane. By upholding my integrity, have I accomplished something? Is it your position that a rational man should not let the necessary suffering of animals cause him unhappiness in order to produce a better tasting diet? I know nobody can know what makes me feel good, but, can you, in theory, be in a position to tell me what should and should not make me feel good?

Would a rational person let his pet dog's happiness influence his own happiness? I value my dog Lucy and god help whoever tries to stick a fork in her! I understand that she is my property but is that the only reason she influences my happiness (nope!)? Can I not feel for an animal who is not my property?

And briefly, I agree about the caving in to mob mentality. I would note however that mob mentality is not on my side.

If I bought a cow carcass from my cousin, since I know him, I'd know what kind of life the cow had. Otherwise, from a practical POV, there are no distinctions that a rational person can make that pertained to the life of the animal.

Yes, from a practical POV, there are distinctions that a rational person can make that pertained to the life of the animal regardless of whether they bought the carcass from their cousin. They can check to see if it has been certified by any number of NPOs that can attest to that animal's quality of life.

This is very obvious to me. I'm probably misunderstanding you.

I wouldn't believe any hippy joint that sells "cruelty-free" lamb chops, unless there were some reputable board of inspectors (not Inspectors) who observed the process and ascertained that certain published methods were rigorously adhered to. Hence this is largely a non-issue, from a moral perspective. This is kind like the organic crap that we suffered through decades ago. Eventually there may develop credible market certification and widespread availability, but again, look at the price of organic and conventional food -- almost never is organic competitive with inorganic. And the diferences in price are not trivial. So a rational man would simply realize that they should buy the best cheap chicken that they can find. Now on grounds of quality, I like to go to the butcher's shop and buy a somewhat more expensive but actually better quality chicken once in a while. I've never asked whether those chickens are tortured, and don't plan to. They make better barbecue.

I agree.

[Inspector]

can you, in theory, be in a position to tell me what should and should not make me feel good?

I think the top entry here might be helpful to you.

Emotions aren't primaries - they are automated responses based on the value judgments that you previously integrated into your subconscious through your conscious choices and value judgments. As such, they are capable of being in error if the original, conscious, choices and value judgments that you programmed them with are in error.

So it is not only possible, but also absolutely necessary for you to find out what should and should not make you feel good, lest you end up "miswiring" your emotional mechanism and ending up feeling good about things which hurt you, and/or feeling bad about things which help you.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Inspector

[SpaceChimp007]

I think the top entry here might be helpful to you.

Emotions aren't primaries - they are automated responses based on the value judgments that you previously integrated into your subconscious through your conscious choices and value judgments. As such, they are capable of being in error if the original, conscious, choices and value judgments that you programmed them with are in error.

So it is not only possible, but also absolutely necessary for you to find out what should and should not make you feel good, lest you end up "miswiring" your emotional mechanism and ending up feeling good about things which hurt you, and/or feeling bad about things which help you.

That link was helpful! The idea of my emotions reflecting my values seems to make sense. I agree that I ought to know what should and should not make me feel good. I'm not sure how following a vegan diet would apply though. I know that animals suffer as a result of my eating of certain meats. I know that the suffering of animals, all else being equal, is something I would rather rid the world of. I know not enjoying the taste of meat brings about less happiness to me but when I consider the happiness I get from knowing I'm fighting against inhumane animal treatment, I'm happier not eating meat. Since b is more valuable to me than a , I will seek to bring about b so long as its cost is not too high relative to the cost of obtaining a .

Inspector, are you saying I should try and kick my emotional attachment towards the inhumane treatment of animals? I acknowledge that by doing so I would be back to eating meat. Other than by lying to myself which logic would not permit, I'm not sure how to rewire my mind. Perhaps I just need to think this through and go over this concept in my head for a bit.

Thanks for the feedback Inspector