The ethics of meat eating...

[murphy_p_t]

Murphy,

Let's remove the NY Times from the issue at hand here. Are you against having more information about the food that you consume? Do you like being kept in the dark about the products you put into your and your family's bodies? If you do, please elaborate why.

Why is demanding open and accurate information about the product you are consuming an affront to business? I don't understand that attitude....

Doodle,
these are very different questions, in my view, than implying there's something "unethical" about being a carnivore.

[doodle]

WAH,

Not too many years ago being in a cage with 20 other sweaty humans was safer than being in Central Park.

I have trouble seeing how a libertarian could make a statement like the above. I thought this was the libertarian mantra: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

There is no way to know whether a chicken is "happy", a decidedly human construct.

Really? So humans are the only creatures that experience happiness? We share 99% of the genetic makeup of most other mammals yet we are the only ones who can feel happy? Anyone who has ever been around any animal (chickens included) would tell you that this statement is utter nonsense.

The "moral" argument for humans eating meat is that we evolved as meat eaters.  It is in our nature, in our genetic heritage.  We also eat lots of other stuff and likely have the most diverse diet (as a species) of any species on the planet.  I have no problem with anyone arranging their diet to suit whatever they choose (cannibalism aside), but I do have a problem with those who argue from the position that veganism/vegetarianism, et al. is on a more enlightened plane.

I'm not arguing that it is immoral to eat meat. I myself eat meat. What I am arguing is that the way that we "raise" animals on industrial farms could certainly be classified as "unethical". I am also making the argument that hiding this information from consumers is also unethical as we have a right to know about what we put in our bodies. Are you against having more information about the food that you put in your body? Maybe, we should just go back to the days of Upton Sinclair's "Jungle"....

[doodle]

Murphy,

The question from the NY Times is to come up with a reason why eating meat is ethical. I think that it is, but I think you can make the argument that raising animals in deplorable conditions to eat them is unethical.

Tell me if the treatment of these pigs at Smithfield seems ethical to you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vqIGTKuQE

If this doesn't bother you, I really think you are missing some key human emotions.

[doodle]

Meet the new Meat

It seems like the Dutch are on the cutting edge of "in vitro" lab meat. A good overview of what might be on your plate at sometime in the future:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2oB38a6RTg

[WildAboutHarry]

I have trouble seeing how a libertarian could make a statement like the above. I thought this was the libertarian mantra: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Sorry, not a libertarian.  My avatar is homage to HB (it is one of his campaign buttons from the 2000 election).

Really? So humans are the only creatures that experience happiness? We share 99% of the genetic makeup of most other mammals yet we are the only ones who can feel happy? Anyone who has ever been around any animal (chickens included) would tell you that this statement is utter nonsense.

What I am saying is that we humans cannot know what constitutes "happiness" in other species.  And I've been around animals, chickens included.  It is far too easy to observe animal behavior, project ourselves into those circumstances, assess how we would feel, and assume the animal is feeling the same thing.  Walk a mile in their hooves, so to speak.

Your statement also implies some sort of reciprocity about inter-species awareness of happiness (i.e. "99% genetic makup").  Does a chicken ponder human happiness?  Does a mountain lion?  We humans contemplate such things because we can.  We do empathize with other species ("I would sure hate to be locked up in a cage and lay eggs all day", etc.).

If what you are saying is that we should not be needlessly cruel in the ways we obtain our food supplies then I agree.  Electro-prodding downer cattle is needlessly cruel.  Ultimately, though, in any predator-prey relationship there are losers and winners.

I am all for disclosure of information for what our food contains and how it is produced, within reason.  What I don't want is myriad government warning labels plastered on food products.  I don't want surgeon general's warnings.  If consumers are individually interested  in this information then they can find out those things easily enough.  Or individual consumers can be proactive and seek out food producers that practice agriculture in a way that is comfortable for that consumer.

The whole "unethical" argument, though, is a very slippery slope.  Whose ethics?  Is it ultimately unethical to kill animals for food?

[doodle]

As one begins to peel back the layers of lies and misinformation that are put out by the large agri-business lobby, I realize even more the necessity for clear and accurate information.

I have been buying cage free eggs in the store (and paying extra) for the idea that these chickens are afforded at least a decent standard of living. I now feel deceived. If this slide show is what the industry uses to refer to as cage free, then there is a wide gap between the truth and what my perception of "cage free" meant.

This is quite unappetizing. Certainly not what the egg council wants you to see....

http://www.humanemyth.org/downloads/cagefree.pdf