Peter Singer's Animal Liberation (1975) is a must-read book. Almost 50 years since its publication, it's still relevant - provides a solid argument in favor of reducing one's meat consumption.
An Animal’s Place (2002)
11–20 of 69 posts
Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)
#12This documentary is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko (Dominion, released in 2018, unfortunately requires signing into youtube due to age retrictions)
My favorite documentary is Earthlings
Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)
#13Of the arguments Pollan presents for why it's okay to kill animals for food, the most persuasive is that domesticated animals evolved in symbiosis with humans — that they essentially made a deal with humans whereby we would take care of them in exchange for their "products" and their lives: "[...] domestication happened when a small handful of especially opportunistic species discovered through Darwinian trial and er…
To me the main argument around the morality of killing animals for food has to do with the natural life cycle. You absolutely can have a self-consistent position that killing animals for food is morally evil, but only if you also consider all carnivores as morally evil. I believe Hinduism for example holds this position. But I don't think you can consider a human killing a lamb morally evil while thinking that a tige…
Applying questions of the morality of eating meat to obligate carnivores makes no sense; there can be no moral question if there isn’t an option between two paths. Obligate carnivores MUST eat meat, so whether or not they “should” makes no sense to ask.
Humans are not obligate carnivores, though, which is morally relevant. We can hold human beings to a standard (don’t eat animals if you can avoid it) but not carnivores to the same specifically because we have a choice and they do not.
Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)
#14Nature doesn't deal in morality, right or wrong. Nature deals in balance. A fox that kills all the rabbits one year will die of hunger the next. The question isn't whether the fox has a moral right to kill rabbits or not, the question is whether the fox maintains the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is part of. Act too unsustainably and break the balance by too much, and you disrupt the ecosystem, and…
Rubbish. By this logic, we can just say that we shouldn't upset the "balance" of the slave owners -- they were able to to "maintain the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is a part of".
Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me the main argument around the morality of killing animals for food has to do with the natural life cycle. You absolutely can have a self-consistent position that killing animals for food is morally evil, but only if you also consider all carnivores as morally evil. I believe Hinduism for example holds this position. But I don't think you can consider a human killing a lamb morally evil while thinking that a tige…
Applying questions of the morality of eating meat to obligate carnivores makes no sense; there can be no moral question if there isn’t an option between two paths. Obligate carnivores MUST eat meat, so whether or not they “should” makes no sense to ask. Humans are not obligate carnivores, though, which is morally relevant. We can hold human beings to a standard (don’t eat animals if you can avoid it) but not carnivor…
Usually, killing another being in order for you to survive (outside of self-defense) is not considered morally right.
Either way, even by your logic, tigers may be morally neutral, but bears or wolves should still be considered evil.
Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)
#16Nature doesn't deal in morality, right or wrong. Nature deals in balance. A fox that kills all the rabbits one year will die of hunger the next. The question isn't whether the fox has a moral right to kill rabbits or not, the question is whether the fox maintains the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is part of. Act too unsustainably and break the balance by too much, and you disrupt the ecosystem, and…
Rubbish . By this logic, we can just say that we shouldn't upset the "balance" of the slave owners -- they were able to to "maintain the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is a part of".
Um, no. Humans do have morality, and can and should apply it to one another - and can expect and even demand the same in return from others. We can't do that with nature, and nature does not need or want that in return from us.
Humans are both animals, that need to fit into an ecosystem, and social creatures, that need to fit into a society. Both domains require rules for how we interact with and fit into them, but those rules are not the same.
Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)
#17Pollan has a tendency to talk himself into pretty weird conclusions, namely that because we can treat an animal well and give it a good life, killing it and consuming it before it naturally dies is somehow good. There is this made up notion that the animal is almost a sacrifice for us: in exchange for a peaceful safe life, it gives us its blood and flesh. But remember, never willingly. It never wants to die. It can n…
I don't see how you can string together such a consistent argument and still be so incredibly wrong. Killing animals for food is not wrong and never was. Killing for the love of killing is wrong, but killing e.g. a pig is as moral as plucking an apple from a tree. You bring up a curious point about dogs - eating dogs is not usually practiced, though there are existing cultures who do it and we have records of past cultures who did it. Western society has decided that the dog is a beloved companion, but a person who did not grow up indoctrinated to think that way would have no qualms about eating one, save for the fact that you get a lot less meat out of one than what you put in, plus the fact it can probably serve you better alive. You can see a similar parallel in people's attitudes to eating rats - some may be revolted at eating such a dirty animal (similar to how some cultures feel about pigs), some would be aghast at eating a beloved pet (similar to how you feel about dogs), and some wouldn't really mind it.
At the end of the day, every living thing on this planet - every tree, every plant, every mushroom, every fish, every insect and every mammal dies and is eaten. I absolutely agree with you on the factory farms though - humanity should strive to not cause other creatures to suffer.
Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)
#18Pollan has a tendency to talk himself into pretty weird conclusions, namely that because we can treat an animal well and give it a good life, killing it and consuming it before it naturally dies is somehow good. There is this made up notion that the animal is almost a sacrifice for us: in exchange for a peaceful safe life, it gives us its blood and flesh. But remember, never willingly. It never wants to die. It can n…
I don't see how you can string together such a consistent argument and still be so incredibly wrong. Killing animals for food is not wrong and never was. Killing for the love of killing is wrong, but killing e.g. a pig is as moral as plucking an apple from a tree. You bring up a curious point about dogs - eating dogs is not usually practiced, though there are existing cultures who do it and we have records of past cu…
> At the end of the day, every living thing on this planet - every tree, every plant, every mushroom, every fish, every insect and every mammal dies and is eaten.
Except humans. Humans cremate their corpses.
While we might get into a debate about whether some forms of life somewhere on Earth technically consume your scattered ashes, it's quite the distance from hitting you on the head until you die and then chewing on your flesh.
Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rubbish . By this logic, we can just say that we shouldn't upset the "balance" of the slave owners -- they were able to to "maintain the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is a part of".
Um, no. Humans do have morality, and can and should apply it to one another - and can expect and even demand the same in return from others. We can't do that with nature, and nature does not need or want that in return from us. Humans are both animals, that need to fit into an ecosystem, and social creatures, that need to fit into a society. Both domains require rules for how we interact with and fit into them, but t…
So are you saying humans are super-natural?
Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. We are unique in that we have the ability to develop morality. We will not throw that gift aside just because the rest of nature can not. We can and we should judge our actions by our morality. And nature itself is not exempt from judgement by that morality. It is entirely valid to ask ourselves if nature itself is morally wrong. It is not a stretch to make an argument that it is, in fact, not. Nature is built ar…
We have the ability to develop _a_ morality. There are infinite possible variations. Being human means we judge ourselves and others. You should expect to be judged as well. If your sense of morality includes a sense of superiority or an entitlement to enforce your will on others, you can expect to be judged poorly.
> We have the ability to develop _a_ morality. There are infinite possible variations.
And some of them are better than others.