Ethics of eating meat

For those deep thinkers out there.
User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 22198
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Thunktank » Mon Nov 26, 2018 11:21 am

Nature of a Man wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:31 am
Thunktank wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 1:15 am
Nature of a Man wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:09 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:54 pm
Whoa, veganism as a universal concept?
Concepts of attempting to define ethical treatment of animals is a fairly universal concept of world religions, from what I've seen. Specifics seem to vary somewhat.

My understanding is that most world religions never required strict veganism, but permitted meat in moderation with an emphasis on healthy preparation methods and respectful treatment of the animals - there may also have been certain traditions or movements within world religions which practiced austere veganism, similar to monastic or ascetic traditions within Christianity which practiced strict nonviolence or renunciation of worldly comforts.
First and foremost, a vegan diet is a first world privilege.
Veganism is as simple as beans and rice - doesn't seem like a first world privilege to me (but feel free to explain what you meant in more detail).

Especially given that meat is typically rarer and more expensive to produce than plant based foods are. Raising a cow and taking it to the butcher would've been much more difficult than simply growing simple crops.

In 3rd world economies, or historically, I think it would have been much rarer to have the luxury of enjoying meat at all, unless one was a hunter or farmer by trade, and could afford enjoy the best cuts, or was a nobleman with his own private chef at his disposal. I'd assume the average person's diet would have had far less easy access to meat than one does in the modern world, with a fast food joint 10 minutes away.
Americans of reasonable means are privileged, including how we eat. The fact that we can go online and post about it is privileged. But I was thinking about the 13 year old girls I’ve heard of around here who won’t eat the chicken given to them for dinner because they have convinced themselves that chickens are a protected class. Then they somehow convince the adults in their lives to make a special trip to Trader Joe’s to pick up some vegan patty to serve them instead.

Anyway, this raised a farm boy, hunter, and veteran is going back to sleep. I’ll leave you to hang out with the thoughts of Orthodox and Buddhist monks and teenage girls to talk about meat abstinence, husbandry ethics, non violence and vegan eating. I’m looking forward to eating my free range eggs in the morning.
Well, I was trying to talk about "veganism" as simply people deciding to not eat meat - not fancy schmancy things like "vegan patties" (barf) or fancy Vegan Grocery stores.
Yes, and I was broadening the ethics to areas of culture, hospitality and manners. People choose not to eat meat for all kinds of reasons. I personally have little interest or patience for long drawn out religious rulings over food, greatful that I’m not a Jew or Muslim. I’ve been an Orthodox Christian too, the Orthodox have a long list of fasts and fasting/abstinence rules. Most are based in long held cultural practices from another part of the world from another time. Others like Buddhists, develope a theology about life I simply find unreal.

I do consider food ethics. I support humanely treating livestock, my brother is a grass fed beef farmer in Pennsylvania. Those cows of his are as happy as cows can be! I wish I lived with them. And that’s another important point and part of the solution to better ethics and self awareness, it is good to have a personal experience with your food. To really know it, to experience where it comes from and what it needs to grow. I actually dislike large scale farming if for no other reason than it enables people to spend their whole lives getting all their food from a shopping center. Go grow food, raise food, fish for food and hunt for food!

I have raised food with my own hands, I’ve killed animals to guard the garden or to put wild game on the table. I’ve done this all my life and so have countless generations of people before me. We evolved as hunters first. That’s part of our true nature, no different than that of a wolf. I’m more concerned about the ethics of gluttony and greed than of eating meat, which to me, in and of itself is of no concern. I only wish my urban life today allowed for more contact with my food before it gets wrapped in cellophane. I do what I can.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

“I grew up in a church with Ned Flanders. Down to the mustache. But so did a bunch of people I assume, which makes it so fun-diddly-unny.” -tuttle

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 38401
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Del » Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:06 pm

Nature of a Man wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:09 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:54 pm
First and foremost, a vegan diet is a first world privilege.
Veganism is as simple as beans and rice - doesn't seem like a first world privilege to me (but feel free to explain what you meant in more detail).

Especially given that meat is typically rarer and more expensive to produce than plant based foods are. Raising a cow and taking it to the butcher would've been much more difficult than simply growing simple crops.

In 3rd world economies, or historically, I think it would have been much rarer to have the luxury of enjoying meat at all, unless one was a hunter or farmer by trade, and could afford enjoy the best cuts, or was a nobleman with his own private chef at his disposal. I'd assume the average person's diet would have had far less easy access to meat than one does in the modern world, with a fast food joint 10 minutes away.
In very poor countries, people eat food when they can. They don't have the luxury of choosing a special diet for the sake of virtue signaling. Thus -- "Vegans" only exist in the luxury of First World cultures.

But Beans & Rice -- now, we're talking! Together, these make a "complete protein" (providing all of the essential amino acids). Nearly every culture has its own version of beans & rice.

Cuban Black Beans & Rice ("Moros y Cristianos")
Cajun Red Beans & Rice
Mexican Refried Beans & Rice
Southern American Hoppin' John (black-eyed peas & rice)
Feijoada - the national dish of Brazil.
Punjab Dal Makhani

Wikipedia Rice & Beans
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
DepartedLight
Head of the Council of Fairies
Head of the Council of Fairies
Posts: 28437
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Tobacco Fairy HQ, North Carolina

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by DepartedLight » Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:43 pm

FredS wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:25 am
A few of you don't seem to fully understand agriculture. Guilty. You can feed your table scraps to pigs. I don't have any pigs nor do any of my closest neighbors. You can put your cows out to graze in areas not suitable for crops. No pigs nor cows, to be clear. You can put a goat in your yard and retire your lawnmower. I think yer just being mean to coco here. You can feed ground up chicken bones and feathers to farm-raised fish. Well. I've never tried this combo. Once my brother and I were Jonesing so bad to go fishing we took off with poles and bait. Olive loaf. That's right. 4 inch small mouth would not nibble on it. We could see him turning his nose up to it. Raising animals for meat isn't necessarily a net drain on resources. Ruminants especially are fantastic little factories that can convert grass into a nice steak or gyro. It's probably the least damaging way to produce protein. I don't understand this statement. Prolly means it means something.

Also, in as much as most row crops (wheat, oats, corn, sorghum, milo, etc) are evolved grasses we shouldn't rely so heavily on them as part of our diet. OK. No row crops even if it's milo. Got it.
DL Jake

Feel free to use that quote in your signature. Stanley76 » 22 Feb 2019 21:50

User avatar
Sir Moose
President Jar-Jar Binks fan club: "Meesa tink he da best!" - Perpetually in Trouble
President Jar-Jar Binks fan club: "Meesa tink he da best!" - Perpetually in Trouble
Posts: 3655
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:17 am
Location: NW Washington (not Canada)
Contact:

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Sir Moose » Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:59 pm

George Washington McLintock wrote: God made that land fer buffalo. Serves pretty well for cattle. But it hates the plow! And even the government should know that you can't farm six thousand feet above sea level.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

User avatar
Hovannes
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Posts: 24753
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Hovannes » Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:49 pm

Humans are equipped with teeth to eat designed to masticate both meat and vegetables.
Don't try fooling Mother Nature
https://youtu.be/ijVijP-CDVI
"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

User avatar
Hovannes
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Posts: 24753
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Hovannes » Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:59 pm

Image
"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

User avatar
Nature of a Man
Usher
Usher
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:14 am

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Nature of a Man » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:29 am

Del wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:06 pm
Nature of a Man wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:09 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:54 pm
First and foremost, a vegan diet is a first world privilege.
Veganism is as simple as beans and rice - doesn't seem like a first world privilege to me (but feel free to explain what you meant in more detail).

Especially given that meat is typically rarer and more expensive to produce than plant based foods are. Raising a cow and taking it to the butcher would've been much more difficult than simply growing simple crops.

In 3rd world economies, or historically, I think it would have been much rarer to have the luxury of enjoying meat at all, unless one was a hunter or farmer by trade, and could afford enjoy the best cuts, or was a nobleman with his own private chef at his disposal. I'd assume the average person's diet would have had far less easy access to meat than one does in the modern world, with a fast food joint 10 minutes away.
In very poor countries, people eat food when they can. They don't have the luxury of choosing a special diet for the sake of virtue signaling. Thus -- "Vegans" only exist in the luxury of First World cultures.

But Beans & Rice -- now, we're talking! Together, these make a "complete protein" (providing all of the essential amino acids). Nearly every culture has its own version of beans & rice.

Cuban Black Beans & Rice ("Moros y Cristianos")
Cajun Red Beans & Rice
Mexican Refried Beans & Rice
Southern American Hoppin' John (black-eyed peas & rice)
Feijoada - the national dish of Brazil.
Punjab Dal Makhani

Wikipedia Rice & Beans
Thanks for the inspiration, I was looking for some new beans and rice recipes.
Del wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 6:22 pm
I wouldn't say that "vegan" is a "more enlightened path." I'd say it's a trendy crackpot notion, preferred by folks who collect reasons to feel self-righteous.

A century ago, that same class of people were religiously devoted to prohibiting alcohol. And eugenics. Remember?

I have grown to mistrust the passing moral fads. The modern Vegan class cares about the souls of animals. The same people demand legalized cannabis and ready access to subsidized abortion.
As far as those other issues go, - my understanding is that as far as the US Constitution and states' Common Law are concerned, states' legally have the right to enact prohibitions against things such as alcohol, recreational drugs, and whatnot if they believes it is in their interest.

This doesn't necessarily mean they "should", or that attempting to over-regulate things in an incompetent way would be effective (such as how prohibition against alcohol allegedly lead to popular black markets and put the money in the hands of gangsters such as Al Capone).

Eugenics is a different story, though I'd make a distinction between fringe eugenic theories such as "race-based eugenics" like that of the Third Reich, and all forms of "population control". My understanding is that states have population control laws in place in the case of some more extreme examples of abuse and neglect, such as denying reproductive rights to some convicted child abusers or some people who perpetually refuse to support their children - in instances where it's about targeting abuse or irresponsibility rather than targeting a specific racial or ethnic group, I'm not sure I could compare that to what is typically described as "eugenics".
Hovannes wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:49 pm
Humans are equipped with teeth to eat designed to masticate both meat and vegetables.
Don't try fooling Mother Nature
https://youtu.be/ijVijP-CDVI
"Mankind is poised midway between God and the beasts." - Plotinus (paraphrased)

User avatar
FredS
The Trappists say shut it, still talking
The Trappists say shut it, still talking
Posts: 22100
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by FredS » Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:09 pm

Mrs FredS works in a building with some pretty crunchy people - this is Colorado after all - and a few resident mice. She's been setting (kill) traps out in her office the last few evenings and catching a few of the mice. As she disposed of one yesterday, she showed it to an office mate who asked that she never show her such a thing again because she's a vegan. Mrs FredS said "I wasn't expecting you to eat the thing."
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
Nature of a Man
Usher
Usher
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:14 am

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Nature of a Man » Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:17 pm

FredS wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:09 pm
Mrs FredS works in a building with some pretty crunchy people - this is Colorado after all - and a few resident mice. She's been setting (kill) traps out in her office the last few evenings and catching a few of the mice. As she disposed of one yesterday, she showed it to an office mate who asked that she never show her such a thing again because she's a vegan. Mrs FredS said "I wasn't expecting you to eat the thing."
I don't see how that would directly relate to veganism.

Not all animals, or ways in which animals can be killed or are killed would be the same; if a mouse is acting as an "invader" or disease carrier, and one was killing it as a "necessary ill" to prevent harm to oneself or those in one's vicinity, this wouldn't be the same as "killing for solely sport", or killing animals in excess to produce certain types of foods of arguable necessity, nutritional value, and so on.

-

For that matter, if one was vegan, I'd think they would want to see what they're eating, in order to make an informed decision on it, like any conspicuous consumer would, but that's just me, I don't know any vegans and can't speak for them.

User avatar
FredS
The Trappists say shut it, still talking
The Trappists say shut it, still talking
Posts: 22100
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by FredS » Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:49 pm

Nature of a Man wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:17 pm
FredS wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:09 pm
Mrs FredS works in a building with some pretty crunchy people - this is Colorado after all - and a few resident mice. She's been setting (kill) traps out in her office the last few evenings and catching a few of the mice. As she disposed of one yesterday, she showed it to an office mate who asked that she never show her such a thing again because she's a vegan. Mrs FredS said "I wasn't expecting you to eat the thing."
I don't see how that would directly relate to veganism.

Not all animals, or ways in which animals can be killed or are killed would be the same; if a mouse is acting as an "invader" or disease carrier, and one was killing it as a "necessary ill" to prevent harm to oneself or those in one's vicinity, this wouldn't be the same as "killing for solely sport", or killing animals in excess to produce certain types of foods of arguable necessity, nutritional value, and so on.

-

For that matter, if one was vegan, I'd think they would want to see what they're eating, in order to make an informed decision on it, like any conspicuous consumer would, but that's just me, I don't know any vegans and can't speak for them.
To engage or not to engage?

Since you wrote "I don't know any vegans and can't speak for them" right after you presumed to tell me about veganism, I'll choose not to engage.
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
Jester
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1758
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Jester » Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:07 pm

I have a moral obligation to feed my kids meat. To not due so would be child abuse. The ethics of eating meat is to eat meat. To call the design of eating meat "a necessary evil" is to attribute evil to the designer.
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"O Christmas Tree is going to be a dirge in his home this year I fear."

We almost solved the Mary issue. -FredS

User avatar
Nature of a Man
Usher
Usher
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:14 am

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Nature of a Man » Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:11 pm

FredS wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:49 pm
Nature of a Man wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:17 pm
FredS wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:09 pm
Mrs FredS works in a building with some pretty crunchy people - this is Colorado after all - and a few resident mice. She's been setting (kill) traps out in her office the last few evenings and catching a few of the mice. As she disposed of one yesterday, she showed it to an office mate who asked that she never show her such a thing again because she's a vegan. Mrs FredS said "I wasn't expecting you to eat the thing."
I don't see how that would directly relate to veganism.

Not all animals, or ways in which animals can be killed or are killed would be the same; if a mouse is acting as an "invader" or disease carrier, and one was killing it as a "necessary ill" to prevent harm to oneself or those in one's vicinity, this wouldn't be the same as "killing for solely sport", or killing animals in excess to produce certain types of foods of arguable necessity, nutritional value, and so on.

-

For that matter, if one was vegan, I'd think they would want to see what they're eating, in order to make an informed decision on it, like any conspicuous consumer would, but that's just me, I don't know any vegans and can't speak for them.
To engage or not to engage?

Since you wrote "I don't know any vegans and can't speak for them" right after you presumed to tell me about veganism, I'll choose not to engage.
My definition of vegan is the dictionary definition, which merely means a person who consumes no animals for food, which sounds like a basic enough concept to me. You're using a different definition from what I can tell:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan:

a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals

It sounds like you're talking about "veganism" as some type of cultural trend, fad diet, or otherwise, which to me doesn't have much in the way of bearing on the discussion, since all of those things would merely be tertiary to veganism, rather than "veganism" by the bare bones definition.

(e.x. How one reacts to mice being killed wouldn't have any relevance when it comes to discussing whether or not one should kill or eat mice).
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:07 pm
I have a moral obligation to feed my kids meat. To not due so would be child abuse. The ethics of eating meat is to eat meat. To call the design of eating meat "a necessary evil" is to attribute evil to the designer.
If you mean not malnourishing kids by denying them meat, I'd agree with that. Though if you're using a position that people are "designed" or "personally obligated" to eat meat, I'd disagree with that - since in practice, not any and all "potential" uses for any part or faculty are necessarily designated to be used every way which is theoretically "possible".

As an example - a person's hand has the potential to be used to hand money to an offering plate - but it also has the potential to be used to pick-pocket a stranger's wallet. Arguing that because a person's hand "could" be used for theft, that this means it was designed to be used for theft, and denouncing theft is somehow insulting it's designer, is a bad argument.

In some cases, my understanding is that things which are not ideals are be permitted as necessary ills or parts of human nature (e.x. I think most but the truly insane would argue that killing animals to prevent people from starving to death would be acceptable).

Even then, arguing that killing animals is a "good" or end in and of itself, as opposed to means to an end to feed people, seems to be a bad argument. In regards to "necessary evil arguments", that would to me, be a difference between arguing that violence in self-defense is sometimes a necessary ill of life (e.x. most would agree that if a person was assaulted by a stranger, they would be right to use force to defend themselves) - as opposed to arguing that violence is a good thing, or one which should be actively pursued (e.x. arguing that fighting and violence are good, or intended by God).
-

I also see little Biblical evidence that anyone was ever "mandated" to eat meat, as opposed to merely permitted to - anymore than I see any Biblical evidence that people were "mandated" to consume wine or alcohol, though they were never specifically prohibited from doing it (as in Islam).

-

TL:DR version - Arguing that eating meat is fine, I agree with. Arguing that eating meat or killing animals is a commandment or obligation does not make much sense to me (beyond the extent to which it might be a "necessary evil" to prevent starvation or malnourishment).

As a hypothetical scenario, I can't see someone making a case for why they would be 'morally obligated' to dine on filet minon and veal steaks, and 'sinning' if they opted for a salad, beans and rice instead (unless they were Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation).
Last edited by Nature of a Man on Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jester
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1758
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Jester » Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:44 pm

Nature of a Man wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:11 pm
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:07 pm
I have a moral obligation to feed my kids meat. To not due so would be child abuse. The ethics of eating meat is to eat meat. To call the design of eating meat "a necessary evil" is to attribute evil to the designer.
I'd argue this would not be true - since in practice, not any and all "potential" uses for any part or faculty are necessarily designated to be used every way which is theoretically "possible".

As an example - a person's hand has the potential to be used to hand money to an offering plate - but it also has the potential to be used to pick-pocket a stranger's wallet. Arguing that because a person's hand "could" be used for theft, that this means it was designed to be used for theft, and denouncing theft is somehow insulting it's designer, is a bad argument.

In some cases, my understanding is that things which are not ideals are be permitted as necessary ills or parts of human nature (e.x. I think most but the truly insane would argue that killing animals to prevent people from starving to death would be acceptable).

Even then, arguing that killing animals is a "good" or end in and of itself, as opposed to means to an end to feed people, seems to be a bad argument. In regards to "necessary evil arguments", that would to me, be a difference between arguing that violence in self-defense is sometimes a necessary ill of life (e.x. most would agree that if a person was assaulted by a stranger, they would be right to use force to defend themselves) - as opposed to arguing that violence is a good thing, or one which should be actively pursued (e.x. arguing that fighting and violence are good, or intended by God).
-

I also see little Biblical evidence that anyone was ever "mandated" to eat meat, as opposed to merely permitted to - anymore than I see any Biblical evidence that people were "mandated" to consume wine or alcohol, though they were never specifically prohibited from doing it (as in Islam).
Did Jesus commit a necessary evil when he cooked fish for the Apostles after the Resurrection? He had no need to eat, this destroys the argument of necessity. You are calling something evil based on your own morality. Jesus did not find this evil. I lean toward he is right and you are wrong. The Bible rebukes your position.
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"O Christmas Tree is going to be a dirge in his home this year I fear."

We almost solved the Mary issue. -FredS

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13686
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by tuttle » Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:50 pm

Nature of a Man wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:11 pm
FredS wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:49 pm
Nature of a Man wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:17 pm
FredS wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:09 pm
Mrs FredS works in a building with some pretty crunchy people - this is Colorado after all - and a few resident mice. She's been setting (kill) traps out in her office the last few evenings and catching a few of the mice. As she disposed of one yesterday, she showed it to an office mate who asked that she never show her such a thing again because she's a vegan. Mrs FredS said "I wasn't expecting you to eat the thing."
I don't see how that would directly relate to veganism.

Not all animals, or ways in which animals can be killed or are killed would be the same; if a mouse is acting as an "invader" or disease carrier, and one was killing it as a "necessary ill" to prevent harm to oneself or those in one's vicinity, this wouldn't be the same as "killing for solely sport", or killing animals in excess to produce certain types of foods of arguable necessity, nutritional value, and so on.

-

For that matter, if one was vegan, I'd think they would want to see what they're eating, in order to make an informed decision on it, like any conspicuous consumer would, but that's just me, I don't know any vegans and can't speak for them.
To engage or not to engage?

Since you wrote "I don't know any vegans and can't speak for them" right after you presumed to tell me about veganism, I'll choose not to engage.
My definition of vegan is the dictionary definition, which merely means a person who consumes no animals for food, which sounds like a basic enough concept to me. You're using a different definition from what I can tell:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan:

a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals

It sounds like you're talking about "veganism" as some type of cultural trend, fad diet, or otherwise, which to me doesn't have much in the way of bearing on the discussion, since all of those things would merely be tertiary to veganism, rather than "veganism" by the bare bones definition.

(e.x. How one reacts to mice being killed wouldn't have any relevance when it comes to discussing whether or not one should kill or eat mice).
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:07 pm
I have a moral obligation to feed my kids meat. To not due so would be child abuse. The ethics of eating meat is to eat meat. To call the design of eating meat "a necessary evil" is to attribute evil to the designer.
If you mean not malnourishing kids by denying them meat, I'd agree with that. Though if you're using a position that people are "designed" or "personally obligated" to eat meat, I'd disagree with that - since in practice, not any and all "potential" uses for any part or faculty are necessarily designated to be used every way which is theoretically "possible".

As an example - a person's hand has the potential to be used to hand money to an offering plate - but it also has the potential to be used to pick-pocket a stranger's wallet. Arguing that because a person's hand "could" be used for theft, that this means it was designed to be used for theft, and denouncing theft is somehow insulting it's designer, is a bad argument.

In some cases, my understanding is that things which are not ideals are be permitted as necessary ills or parts of human nature (e.x. I think most but the truly insane would argue that killing animals to prevent people from starving to death would be acceptable).

Even then, arguing that killing animals is a "good" or end in and of itself, as opposed to means to an end to feed people, seems to be a bad argument. In regards to "necessary evil arguments", that would to me, be a difference between arguing that violence in self-defense is sometimes a necessary ill of life (e.x. most would agree that if a person was assaulted by a stranger, they would be right to use force to defend themselves) - as opposed to arguing that violence is a good thing, or one which should be actively pursued (e.x. arguing that fighting and violence are good, or intended by God).
-

I also see little Biblical evidence that anyone was ever "mandated" to eat meat, as opposed to merely permitted to - anymore than I see any Biblical evidence that people were "mandated" to consume wine or alcohol, though they were never specifically prohibited from doing it (as in Islam).

-

TL:DR version - Arguing that eating meat is fine, I agree with. Arguing that eating meat or killing animals is a commandment or obligation does not make much sense to me (beyond the extent to which it might be a "necessary evil" to prevent starvation or malnourishment).

As a hypothetical scenario, I can't see someone making a case for why they would be 'morally obligated' to dine on filet minon and veal steaks, and 'sinning' if they opted for a salad, beans and rice instead (unless they were Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation).
"Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." - God
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Nature of a Man
Usher
Usher
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:14 am

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Nature of a Man » Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:51 pm

Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:44 pm
Did Jesus commit a necessary evil when he cooked fish for the Apostles after the Resurrection? He had no need to eat, this destroys the argument of necessity.
I wouldn't automatically see this as a non-necessity in regards to him and the Apostles, for a variety of reasons. And that yes, in the case of ordinary humans, the eating of meat in culture as a whole would be a necessary evil even if Christ himself cooked fish for the Apostles.

I don't find that an apt comparison - much as I wouldn't find referencing the fact that Jesus turned water into wine to be an argument that one should "be a drunkard".
You are calling something evil based on your own morality. Jesus did not find this evil. I lean toward he is right and you are wrong. The Bible rebukes your position.
I'd argue that eating meat as a whole would have the potential to be evil if eaten or prepared in excess or in harmful ways, and believe the Bible does substantiate this.
"Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." - God
On this, I wouldn't agree that this is a unilateral endorsement of "killing or eating" indiscriminately, but a specific commandment to Peter in the context of Peter's specific role or duties in life.

(e.x. Arguing that because God told Peter specifically to kill and eat, is the same as God glorifying killing itself as a whole would seem problematic to me.)

My Biblical take is that eating meat is, in life in general, a necessary evil for most ordinary humans in regards to the fact that humans are imperfect and living in an imperfect world.

I think most would argue, for example, that a police officer serving in law enforcement would be morally permitted and obligated to use force or violence to perform the duties of his job, in regards to preventing crime (e.x. as an officer, the officer would be doing wrong if he ignored the duties of his job or role, even if they required the necessary evil of violence) - but this wouldn't be the the same as saying that "violence or bloodshed" itself is good, or an ideal to strive for - as opposed to a necessary evil to prevent greater violence or catastrophes.

At least in as much as how in heaven, as opposed to on earth, it's said that the lion will lie down with a lamb. Seeming to substantiate that violence or bloodshed, while a necessary evil on earth, are not an ideal, or something which would or should exist in heaven or paradise.

---
TL;DR version

I'd argue that anything which shouldn't exist in heaven (e.x. violence as a whole including among animals), but permitted to exist on earth is a necessary evil. (And anything not permitted on earth, such as murder - would be an "unnecessary evil").

I'd also argue that God permitting people to perform necessary evils, such as eating meat, engaging in conflict, etc, in the context of their roles or realities in life isn't the same as endorsing those things as ends in and of themselves, as opposed to necessary means to their ends.

I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that a healthy person choosing not to eat meat is "sinning", (unless they perhaps were doing so to the point of malnourishing themselves or others).
Last edited by Nature of a Man on Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13686
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by tuttle » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:13 pm

Nature of a Man wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:51 pm
"Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." - God
On this, I wouldn't agree that this is a unilateral endorsement of "killing or eating" indiscriminately, but a specific commandment to Peter in the context of Peter's specific role or duties in life.

(e.x. Arguing that because God told Peter specifically to kill and eat, is the same as God glorifying killing itself as a whole would seem problematic to me.)

My Biblical take is that eating meat is, in life in general, a necessary evil for most ordinary humans in regards to the fact that humans are imperfect and living in an imperfect world.
I also don't take the "Kill and eat" command to endorse indiscriminate slaughter, but what command of God has ever been indiscriminate?

It's the 'necessary evil' part that's not making sense here. Even in the context of Peter being told to kill and eat, Peter responds that ain't no way he'd eat anything unclean, to which God says, Don't call anything God makes clean unclean. And recall what Jesus said, "Man is not defiled by anything that he puts in his cake-hole, but rather from what comes out of his mouth".

I would then contend that the slaughter of animals for food, in this light, is not at all any kind of a shade of evil, much less a necessary one.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Jester
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1758
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Jester » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:14 pm

Nature of a Man wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:51 pm
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:44 pm
Did Jesus commit a necessary evil when he cooked fish for the Apostles after the Resurrection? He had no need to eat, this destroys the argument of necessity.
I wouldn't automatically see this as a non-necessity in regards to him and the Apostles, for a variety of reasons. And that yes, in the case of ordinary humans, the eating of meat in culture as a whole would be a necessary evil even if Christ himself cooked fish for the Apostles.
Do you believe Jesus cooked the fish for the Apostles and then abstained? Does Jesus sin when he practices necessary evil?
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"O Christmas Tree is going to be a dirge in his home this year I fear."

We almost solved the Mary issue. -FredS

User avatar
FredS
The Trappists say shut it, still talking
The Trappists say shut it, still talking
Posts: 22100
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by FredS » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:18 pm

Nature of a Man wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:51 pm
e.x. Arguing that because God told Peter specifically to kill and eat, is the same as God glorifying killing itself as a whole would seem problematic to me.
So much incoherent lunacy, but ^this, this takes the cake. If you really think killing and eating a fish is the same as murder then there's really no point in wasting even one more second here. Problematic indeed, but you're the one who dreamed up the linkage.
Last edited by FredS on Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 36491
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by UncleBob » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:18 pm

Image
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Nature of a Man
Usher
Usher
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:14 am

Re: Ethics of eating meat

Post by Nature of a Man » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:21 pm

FredS wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:18 pm
Nature of a Man wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:51 pm
e.x. Arguing that because God told Peter specifically to kill and eat, is the same as God glorifying killing itself as a whole would seem problematic to me.
If you really think killing and eating a fish is the same as murder then there's really no point in wasting even one more second here.
I was talking about killing animals indiscriminately, not murder. Please read more carefully next time. (If you asked my opinion on that verse, I'd probably argue that this would mean hunters should eat what they kill, rather than kill solely for sport let it go to waste, but that's just me).
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:13 pm
Nature of a Man wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:51 pm
"Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." - God
On this, I wouldn't agree that this is a unilateral endorsement of "killing or eating" indiscriminately, but a specific commandment to Peter in the context of Peter's specific role or duties in life.

(e.x. Arguing that because God told Peter specifically to kill and eat, is the same as God glorifying killing itself as a whole would seem problematic to me.)

My Biblical take is that eating meat is, in life in general, a necessary evil for most ordinary humans in regards to the fact that humans are imperfect and living in an imperfect world.
I also don't take the "Kill and eat" command to endorse indiscriminate slaughter, but what command of God has ever been indiscriminate?

It's the 'necessary evil' part that's not making sense here. Even in the context of Peter being told to kill and eat, Peter responds that ain't no way he'd eat anything unclean, to which God says, Don't call anything God makes clean unclean. And recall what Jesus said, "Man is not defiled by anything that he puts in his cake-hole, but rather from what comes out of his mouth".

I would then contend that the slaughter of animals for food, in this light, is not at all any kind of a shade of evil, much less a necessary one.
Thanks.

My argument was that things which would not exist in heaven, but are permitted to exist on earth, are necessary evils (e.x. eating meat, or elements of living in an imperfect world, such as military and law enforcement). While things not prohibited to exist on earth, would be "unncessary evils" (e.x. murdering other people, as opposed to killing animals).

If the lion is said to lie down with the lamb in heaven, I take this as indicating that eating other animals for food is necessary evil of earth, but would be unnecessary in heaven (as well as being related to the fall of man from Eden).
Jester wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:14 pm
Do you believe Jesus cooked the fish for the Apostles and then abstained? Does Jesus sin when he practices necessary evil?
As far as that goes - whether or not he abstained, I'd argue that Jesus being God in the form of a man isn't a comparable scenario (which I wouldn't be worthy of discussing here), so whether or not Jesus engaged in eating fish wouldn't have any bearing on Jesus being a sinner, or on eating meat being a necessary evil (I attempted to describe what I meant by "necessary "evil" above).

My argument was simply that Jesus cooking fish for the Apostles for the last supper, isn't the same as endorsing indiscriminate killing or eating of animals. (It does indicate though that Jesus never commanded any and everyone to become vegans, which I agree with).
Last edited by Nature of a Man on Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:33 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Post Reply