- Insects. Many peoples across the globe consume insects as part of a daily food source. While insects are still considered animals, many people do not give the same care to them as they do to other animals.
- Lab-grown meat. While currently not sold in any supermarkets, scientists could grow meat in a laboratory using cow stem-cells someday.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Solutions for Animal Ethics Vegetarians
Some vegetarians I've noticed are vegetarians or vegans out of a desire to limit human cruelty on animals. A noble goal, but there might be some alternates for someone who respects animal rights but still want to consume meat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sorry about the length of the post.
ReplyDeleteI agree that these could potentially be solutions, or at least better alternatives to eating animals. There are a few problems however, namely with the first one. Entomophagy, the consumption of insects, is not exactly a healthy choice to make.
1.) Insects have health risks that aren't as prevalent in other animals; they have different kinds of parasites which are more difficult to get rid of compared to the bacteria and parasites in meat; due to the nature of their size, the preparation is less effective at killing parasites; their bodies cannot, at the expense of retaining a decent taste, bear the temperatures necessary to kill the bacteria and parasites. In California there were a number of cases of lead poisoning caused by the consumption of grasshoppers. Additionally, in order to make entomophagy more reasonable, we would have to cease using insecticides or herbicides, given that those are unsuitable for human consumption.
While I agree that eating insects is better, in terms of ethics, than eating other animals, I am not inclined to agree that because people care less about insects than other animals it is acceptable to go out of our way to kill insects. The ethics of vegetarianism is as follows: If you can sustain yourself without causing other living things to suffer, you ought to do so; this is also negotiable in that if you must cause suffering it is best to cause as little of it as possible. So, it would be perfectly ethical to eat the likes of shellfish, meal-worms, larvae, and other grub given that their capacity for pain is very low. Thus, farming insects like grasshoppers to eat would be more ethically appropriate, but not as appropriate as not doing so.
Finally, most people in first world countries would likely be more opposed to eating insects than they would be opposed to giving up meat. If we are going to make an effort to get rid of the consumption of (non-insect) animals, we may as well work to get rid of the consumption of insects. Converting everyone to practice entomophagy would require more work for a less desirable result.
I suggest then, that we should make an effort to become entirely vegetarian. If we do so, the demand to find a decent substitute, founded largely in the meat-taste loving community, would likely speed up the technology necessary for cloned meat. Meat substitutes will only get better for meat-taste lovers, if more meat-taste lovers give up meat and search for/seek to create new meat substitutes. Necessity and desire are the parents of invention.
Also, disregard the number 1, I was using to keep track of my own thoughts but forgot to delete it.
DeleteI really don't like this whole sliding scale of which living creatures are more important than others. It's essentially saying "All life is good, but some lives are better than others". To fulfill the proper ethics of vegans and vegetarians people can't kill anything, plant or animal. Both are alive and just because plants don't make noises when they die, they still lived. At this point, no matter what you eat, something died for it to get to your plate. No matter how you try to look at it, eating is a barbaric and primal action that leaves destruction in its wake for the survival of one species above the rest. No matter how our minds develop, we are cursed by destructive biological necessities. However, I do believe that after the meat-packing revolution there was an unnecessary increase in meat production, and yes, I believe that the industry shouldn't be as it is, but I don't think we can kid ourselves into believing that we can make eating food non-destructive.
DeleteThe ethics of vegetarianism are not accurately described as "not killing a living thing." The ethics of vegetarianism is more accurately described as "not causing other things to suffer." Plants, unlike animals, lack a nervous system, so they are unable to experience pain, to our knowledge.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand the feelings behind not wanting or liking the sliding scale, it is very useful and practical. For instance, would you rather, if you were forced to, stab either a potato or a dog? If you had to choose one, would you rather stab a cow or a chimpanzee? Again, if forced to choose, would you rather kill a 80 year old man with brain damage or a highly intelligent 16 year old? If you made a choice between any of those, then you agree about the value of one living thing over another. If you did not distinguished between the options, then would you kill humans and eat them, since they have the same worth as a cow or potato.
We must kill living things to eat, I agree. I think, however, that we may as well only eat the things which we think cannot experience pain. Even if all life is equal in worth, wouldn't it be best to not cause pain to things which we know have the capacity to suffer?
That's just picking on defenseless plant life. And even if just not causing pain is the issue, if I chloroformed a cow then killed it so that it didn't feel anything as it died, then you would be able to eat that meat. Hence, your philosophy stops being vegetarianism and becomes a slightly less barbaric version of what we do already as omnivores.
ReplyDeleteForemost, you never actually answered any of the questions that I asked. If you could do that, it my help us to better understand your position on the issue. Would you have chosen to kill one over the other, for any of those options?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, putting a creature to sleep with chloroform or otherwise does not prevent them from experiencing pain; it only prevents them from screaming in agony because they are rendered unable to do so. However, if we chose to accept the possibility that putting creatures to sleep made it more ethical to eat them, we would still have a problem with eating meat because even if it worked in theory, it would not work practically. The fact that we don't use chloroform on cows before we kill them makes that hypothesis invalid.
Thirdly, it's not in anyone's best interest to confuse the ethics of a term with the definition of the term. The philosophy is still a vegetarian one because it involves only eating non-animal foods. Even if it only slightly less barbaric, it is still vegetarianism. Because there is a large difference in the central nervous system and the intelligence of animals compared to plants, I think that vegetarianism is substantially less barbaric than meat-eating. Even if you do not agree that it is substantially different, you have already stated that you agree that it is slightly less barbaric, and thereby, presumably, better. Based on that, you ought to become vegetarian given that it is the best option; the lesser of two evils, if you view it such a light. Still I think people are hard-pressed to hold potatoes at the same moral worth, or even similar moral worth to humans, dolphins, parrots, chimpanzees, and so on.
This is just a note, I'm not really using it in defence of any of my points. Interestingly, there are plants that, despite lack of nervous system, have developed the ability to defend themselves by using semiochemicals to attract the higher trophic predators of the herbivores that are feeding on them. A fairly cool ability, I must say. Additionally, many plants have thorns or are poisonous.
First and foremost, I don't mean to pick a fight with you, if I offend you in any way, I am sorry. I don't mean it.
ReplyDeleteWell, the cow thing was a hypothetical showing that by what you said, you could eat meat, not a practical solution to the problem. Also, the cow would not feel pain if killed instantly in any sleep cycle because the brain shuts down all the sensory nerves until a large enough stimulus reawakens the creature. Thirdly, a potato is apart of the potato plant and not the entire plant, if I stabbed a potato, it is me stabbing someone in the leg.
Also, I thought your last question was rhetorical and no I don't think so, because we are still part of the biological hierarchy that helps keep nature in balance.
Also, if we let all the animals we breed go, it would destroy the environment as we know it. The shear amount of animals would just continue to grow and we would have to take them down just to protect the environment. And they would be pray to all the animals because farm animals have been out of the wild for so long their species can't possbly exist well in the wild
ReplyDeleteRight, if I am coming off as aggressive, I'd also apologize for that. It's not aggression so much as my habit of becoming short, formal, and enumerating points when a debate is in order.
ReplyDeleteTo your third point, though I'll prioritize it: I would like to make this question explicit and ask for an answer: If you were forced to kill one, would you kill a potato plant or a human?
To your second point, to address hypothetically killing cows, I have an answer. I had not realized that we had switched the conversation is this manner. Killing the cow would still be immoral because even though the cow would not feel anything if you killed it during its sleep, you would still be depriving it of a future, the future of feeling things. Plants do not feel things. Saying that you could ethically kill cows in their sleep, would be similar to saying that you could ethically kill people in their sleep. Sleep is simply a suspension of activities, animals still have worth while they sleep.
To your fourth point, I would have to argue otherwise. Living in houses, sheltered from the natural conditions of the world is not part of the biological hierarchy. Nowhere in the biological hierarchy, besides with humans, do you see the systematic breeding of animals (to the point where such a population could never exist in nature) to be systematically slaughtered for the masses. Nowhere is it in the biological hierarchy to use 16 pounds of grain to create 1 pound of meat only to throw away more than a third of the food we have. We have, in all effects, removed ourselves from the natural order of things; we hide in our houses until others do work to produce food for us.
Finally, to your fifth point, I am not suggesting we let all the animals go. We could take care of those animals but stop them from reproducing. Of as you suggested, we could systematically kill this generation and not create any additional animals to be killed.
The potato, because our status as a social species makes it so that we group for survival. However, if I were outside that social grouping aspect of evolution, I might take out the human to keep the food source of the potato.
ReplyDeleteTo address the cow, if I were a cow, I would definitely take the shorter life span in return for free health care, food and protection from the wild, just saying.
Also, I'm not doubting that the meat industry isn't doing it right. I don't defend the methods they use because they have done terrible things to workers and cows alike. Did you know that they shuttle in illegal immigrants to work for them and then throw them to the streets if it doesn't work out? But I would be much happier to return to the days when cows grazed freely until it was time to go to market. It is better for cows, the economy and the individual worker.
Most animals, in fact, are social species. Therefore the same reason that you would choose to kill a plant would apply to them. Also, I am not quite sure what you meant by your second point (outside of the social grouping aspect of evolution).
ReplyDeleteRegarding your hypothetically being a cow, if you would choose that, that is fine, that does not however mean anything for the rest of the population. On the other hand, in terms of how it actually is, would you rather have a long life and be afraid of predators occasionally, or would you rather have a short life? Mind you, the short life is actually filled with being fed genetically enhanced foods which caused you to grow so fast that your legs break, rendering you unable to stand, because they cannot handle all of your weight. It is filled with constantly being prodded and branded by humans and having your horns ripped from your skull. Filled with being constantly impregnated so that you produce 10 times the milk that you would normally produce in nature, so much, in fact, that your stomach is filled with pus. Filled with being in such close confined quarters that you quite literally cannot turn around or move in any direction. I'm not sure many people would take that short life over a long one filled with fear occasionally.
Yes, I did know that actually - and interestingly, every time you consume a piece of meat you are supporting that activity by giving them money to do so. I, personally, would be much happier to return to the days when cows grazed freely until it was time to give milk. They could give milk, and then never have to suffer from being killed prematurely. There is no need to ever eat animal flesh, to kill an animal prematurely, if we do not need to. It's better for the cow, the environment, and the individual person. Also, as another side note, the economy and the individual worker would never benefit from that. There would be obscene job loss and the entire beef industry (worth $74,000,000,000) would be crippled.
You keep bringing up how the animals are treated like I think it's the jolliest thing since Santa Claus. I don't. I don't want them to do that. I've said that about 3 times now. And yes, returning to the old ways would be better, because all that excess money is almost entirely profit which does not get recirculated into the economy. Second, there would be much better career opportunities with union protected jobs with specialty meat labor in slaughterhouses, cowboys, and grocery store butcheries. Barely any of those jobs exist anymore outside local organic farms. Also, the yearly turnover rate for jobs in meat is near 90%. People do not keep their jobs there, and a lot of the labor is shipped in immigrants from the company. Meat did just fine before the packaging revolution. It was a stable, respected job that was protected by a strong work force and yeah, the prices would go back up, and that means meat would become a more highly regarded food again and demand would be down.
ReplyDelete