Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 211 posts

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#71

Post by gambiting »

kaoD wrote: post #58
gambiting wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is there no middle ground then? Is it a simple case of you can't have one without another? I believe that you can eat meat, provided that animals live in a decent,stress-free environment. I know it's very hard to find meat that carries any sort of a guarantee on it,but at least here in EU "free range" and "organic" mean something that is legally enforceable, so every time I buy chicken/beef/pork that is organic I…

No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Would it be moral to raise human children, give them a nice childhood and then kill them before they reach adulthood because they're super tasty then? I'm not saying I agree (or don't) with GP, just noting that you missed his point.

I didn't. You equal animal life to human life, hence your statements like "Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death?".

I do not find them equal - I find animals worth carrying about, I would like them to have decent lives, but ultimately - they are food and if they are killed quickly and painlessly then I don't have a problem with it.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#72

Post by asciimo »

epochwolf wrote: post #33
asciimo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we have the right to kill, why don't we have the right to torture?

The very act of torture requires a level of emotional depravity that merely killing does not.

You presuppose that torture is always willful. In the context of human-scale meat production, it seems unavoidable. Yet we accept this, as it is necessary for consumer demands. The employees of factory farm facilities may very well suffer "emotional depravity;" not as a prerequisite for their duties, but as a result.

The nature of torture aside, taking the life of a sentient being is the ultimate violation of its rights. I don't see how any act less than killing can be considered morally worse than killing.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#73

Post by buckbova »

beaker52 wrote: post #55
buckbova wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what you think "it's about". The article was not making a judgement that raising animals for slaughter is wrong.

You might want to note that I was replying to a comment, and not the website.

And the comment on the article by randyrand is "You show me the worst case scenario, but what is the average case?" which has nothing to do with the morality of raising animals for slaughter nor does the article.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#74

Post by bane »

WalterSear wrote: post #37

The opinions on this topic around here are so depressing given how easy, cheap and healthy it is to live without meat, or dairy, for that matter.

> how easy, cheap and healthy it is to live without meat, or dairy, for that matter.

Given the volume and nature of advice in the vegan community for how not to hurt yourself eating as a vegan, I would say that "easy" or "healthy" is not a word that could be reasonably associated with a sustained, long-term vegan diet.

Even long-term vegans have difficulty in getting complete nutrition on their diet which is offered almost by default in a basic omnivorous diet.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#75

Post by kaoD »

astalwick wrote: post #68
kaoD wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Would it be moral to raise human children, give them a nice childhood and then kill them before they reach adulthood because they're super tasty then? I'm not saying I agree (or don't) with GP, just noting that you missed his point.

So, but, that's just ignoring the reality of the world. Fact is: people eat meat. People will continue to eat meat, that's not something that's going to change (in the short term, anyway). Given that, how can we improve the treatment of these animals ? I feel that equating eating meat with murder is just sacrificing the good for the perfect. Lets find a way to give consumers better choice. We should be aware of the t…

No, you're ignoring the reality of the issue! Whether people eat meat or not doesn't matter. How is "a lot of people do it" even a point?

Slavery was a "world reality" too. Would you have suggested a compromise instead of just banning slavery?

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#76

Post by coldtea »

contextual wrote: post #26

If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering t…

>It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong.

Just as? Are you kidding me? For one, animals kill and eat other animals ALL THE TIME. It's what they do.

>To disregard the pain and suffering of animal persons without regard for their interests - just because they're not human, is a form of racism. Peter Singer[1] calls it 'speciesism'.

That's just a word made up for that disregard. The invention of an ad-hoc word for it doesn't automatically make the disregard imoral or bad, much less "as bad as slavery".

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#77

Post by contextual »

watty wrote: post #50
contextual wrote: post #26

If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering t…

No, killing an animal for food is not as morally wrong as slavery or murdering a person. Are you joking? Animals all over the planet kill each other for food. It's part of life. Farm animals are not people and never will be. It's silly to think they deserve the rights of people or to be on the same moral high grounds as people.

Recent research is showing animals are much more intelligent then previously assumed. Parrots reason like three year old children[1], mice feel empathy and grimace in agony[2,3], elephants grieve[4] and birds hold funerals for their dead[5].

When we harm or show an incorrect appreciation for other sentient beings, it shows not only disrespect and lack of understanding and compassion, but it diminishes human dignity.

[1] http://m.livescience.com/22178-parrots-reason-three-year-old...

[2] http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/researchers-say-mice-feel...

[3] http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/squint-if-it-h...

[4] http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/06/when-doves-cry-scientific-a...

[5] http://news.discovery.com/animals/birds-hold-avian-funerals-...

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#78

Post by theonemind »

contextual wrote: post #26

If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering t…

Slavery was not expedient. It's hard to subjugate masses of people. Morality has only ever held sway to the extent it's convenient. Why is the US not a British colony? The Atlantic Ocean. The colonials got feisty, and it became more trouble than it was worth to keep them under heel.

I'm surprised this is not more readily apparent to people. Justice is a fiction. The Republican form of government has helped create stable governments, and acknowledges the inherent FORCE the govererned people can bring to bear against those in power if the government doesn't operate at least somewhat in their interest. Again, morality as popularly conceived has nothing to do with it. It has more to do with the propensity of kings to end up with their heads chopped off. It always boils down to the sword. If animals could organize and rip out faces off for eating them, society would suddenly have a great moral revelation that eating animals is wrong.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#79

Post by lukifer »

contextual wrote: post #26

If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering t…

To take it to the extreme, we can't know for sure that carrots don't experience suffering due to our raising them for food.

We have canines for a reason; meat is part of our evolutionary heritage. I respect the moral decision not to eat animals, and the fact that we do not raise livestock more humanely is unforgivable; but eschewing all animal proteins is extremely detrimental to one's health (the poster child being Steve Jobs in his last ten years of life).

Given that consciousness is a spectrum and not purely binary, I think the proper middle ground is to eat primarily fish (whose nervous systems are probably closer to carrots than to cows) and by-products such as eggs and cheese (from animals who are well-cared-for). If one does choose to eat red meat, it should at least come from pasture farms where the animal has a real life before it is slaughtered.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#80

Post by kaoD »

gambiting wrote: post #71
kaoD wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Would it be moral to raise human children, give them a nice childhood and then kill them before they reach adulthood because they're super tasty then? I'm not saying I agree (or don't) with GP, just noting that you missed his point.

I didn't. You equal animal life to human life, hence your statements like "Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death?". I do not find them equal - I find animals worth carrying about, I would like them to have decent lives, but ultimately - they are food and if they are killed quickly and painlessly then I don't have a problem with it.

Not sure if your argument holds.

We're essentially food too, so it'd be okay to kill and eat you.

Post reply on HN