From a Moral Standpoint...

UponThisRock

Is it wrong to kill something for food.

I want to keep this topic narrow, so all topics aren't rehashing the same arguments. Also, for the purposes of this discussion, I would like to put aside factory farming vs. local farming, etc.

I want to talk specifically about the morality of killing other living things for food.
-Is it wrong?
-Is there a moral difference between killing a plant and an animal?
-If it is wrong to kill to eat, is it wrong to use pesticides that kill insects?

My personal view is that it is not wrong to kill another living thing for food.

Faintgreeneyes

My personal beliefs are that no- its not wrong to kill another living animal for food.

Without getting all bible thumping- but it states in the bible that god created the beast for man to be able to survive.

The world sustains on a food chain, there is a rhyme and reason for why things live together, and feed off each other.

VegesaurusRex

Great topic!

I agree that we should avoid overlap with other topics.

Having said that I am sure it comes as no surpise to you that I think killing for food is immoral, at least under normal circumstances. If I were starving to death, and a chicken came up and rubbed against my legs like a cat, I like to think I would smile and die. I hope that would be the case. Killing an animal that trusts you is no different in my mind than killing a person who trusts you.

Obviously, you do not have to kill animals to stay alive. I have been a vegetarian since 1979, and since that time I have not only lived a healthy life, I have run marathons, been awarded my black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate, and been far, far more physically active than others my age. (I am 68) My two kids have never eaten meat in their lives. They are intelligent, physically very capable, and energetic.

Killing for food is morally wrong, ESPECIALLY if you don't have to. You can live quite nicely on veggies.

Now I would like to address what Faint Green Eyes said. But I would also like to ask Rocky if this is straying too far from the topic or worse, bringing in religion. Anyway, my response to Greeneyes:

What the Bible says is that God gave us DOMINION over the animals. Dominion means sovereignty, not the right to kill. The bible in plenty of places from Genesis on, states that we were meant to eat "the fruitsof the trees," not dead animals.

This is a dangerous topic, because I know quite a lot about the Early Christian Church, I read Latin and Greek, and I have come to certain strong conclusions about what the Christian Church is SUPPOSED to be. Opening this door is something you may not want to do, although I suppose religion is within the area of what is moral and what is not. I will leave this decision up to Rocky, who started this string.

UponThisRock

Great topic!

I agree that we should avoid overlap with other topics.

Having said that I am sure it comes as no surpise to you that I think killing for food is immoral, at least under normal circumstances. If I were starving to death, and a chicken came up and rubbed against my legs like a cat, I like to think I would smile and die. I hope that would be the case. Killing an animal that trusts you is no different in my mind than killing a person who trusts you.

Obviously, you do not have to kill animals to stay alive. I have been a vegetarian since 1979, and since that time I have not only lived a healthy life, I have run marathons, been awared by black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate, and been far, far more physically active than others my age. (I am 68) My two kids have never eaten meat in their lives. They are intelligent, physically very capable, and energetic.

Killing for food is morally wrong, ESPECIALLY if you don't have to. You can live quite nicely on veggies.

What the moral difference between killing an animal and a plant?

VegesaurusRex

What the moral difference between killing an animal and a plant?

Let's be more specific: When is it right to kill.

Plants have no nervous system and cannot feel or sense. They are not sentient. Therefore killing them for food does not hurt them. If you are hungry, it is okay to kill a plant.

The vast majority of animals are sentient. That means they have a nervous system and/or a brain. They feel pain, and expereience fear. It is wrong to kill them.

I hope no one brings up that bogus new age "study" that claimed that plants feel pain.

UponThisRock

What the moral difference between killing an animal and a plant?

Let's be more specific: When is it right to kill.

Plants have no nervous system and cannot feel or sense. They are not sentient. Therefore killing them for food does not hurt them. If you are hungry, it is okay to kill a plant.

The vast majority of animals are sentient. That means they have a nervous system and/or a brain. They feel pain, and expereience fear. It is wrong to kill them.

I hope no one brings up that bogus new age "study" that claimed that plants feel pain.

So, hypothetically, if we induced death in an animal, like "putting them to sleep," where they would feel no pain, fear, etc., would it then be ok to eat them?

VegesaurusRex

[So, hypothetically, if we induced death in an animal, like "putting them to sleep," where they would feel no pain, fear, etc., would it then be ok to eat them?

No. Because there is more. You are also depriving a sentient being of his life. It would be no more moral to do that to an animal, then it would be to do that to a human.

UponThisRock

[So, hypothetically, if we induced death in an animal, like "putting them to sleep," where they would feel no pain, fear, etc., would it then be ok to eat them?

No. Because there is more. You are also depriving a sentient being of his life. It would be no more moral to do that to an animal, then it would be to do that to a human.

So it's moral to kill a non-sentient being for food. Why do you draw the line there?

VegesaurusRex

So it's moral to kill a non-sentient being for food. Why do you draw the line there?

Yup. Non-sentient = no brain, no nervous system.

rico1923

Where to draw the line?

There is a balance to nature that is destroyed by the human need to control their environment. In the North American Pacific Northwest deer and wolves shared the same territory. The deer and wolves did not get together and reach an understanding as to how many deer a wolf kills to eat- a balance between the deer population and the wolf population occurred when deer are scarce (wolves starve and their population decreases) or deer are everywhere (wolves have more food to survive on and thrive). Human ranchers decided to shoot all the wolves to protect their herds (including wolf packs not bothering their herds), which caused the deer population to explode and their territory to expand, which caused the human ranchers to wind up shooting a lot of deer.
On the other side a farmer grows crops that compete with other plant species in their fields for water, sun and soil. The farmer then has to destroy the plants that are competing with his crops through poisons or pulling the offending plants out of the ground.

No matter how you decide to eat something has to go, Our efforts to control and justify what is or isn't ethical to eat gets away from the whole way things exist on our planet. Comparing a plant used as food to an animal used as food is pointless to me because the only personality traits any animal might have is imbued upon him by its beholder. My feeling is if your friendly neighborhood dog/cat gets hungry enough he won't be thinking of how humane your treatment of animals is when he's looking for dinner. Nor will any fish refuse a human meal that come its way whether that person was a pescetarian or not.

tidmutt

Personally I have no issue eating an animal. I would kill one to eat as well although it would be for sustenance not for sport. I've caught many fish and eaten them, I've collected eggs and oysters from rocks.

They taste good, they provide nourishment and it's the way our world works and has worked for eons.

In the end, the morality of eating animal flesh cannot be forced on anyone. It's a personal decision only the individual can arrive at. Try as I might I cannot feel bad about eating animals and I'm sure my position is equally untenable to vegetarians and vegans.

VegesaurusRex

Where to draw the line?

There is a balance to nature that is destroyed by the human need to control their environment. In the North American Pacific Northwest deer and wolves shared the same territory. The deer and wolves did not get together and reach an understanding as to how many deer a wolf kills to eat- a balance between the deer population and the wolf population occurred when deer are scarce (wolves starve and their population decreases) or deer are everywhere (wolves have more food to survive on and thrive). Human ranchers decided to shoot all the wolves to protect their herds (including wolf packs not bothering their herds), which caused the deer population to explode and their territory to expand, which caused the human ranchers to wind up shooting a lot of deer.
On the other side a farmer grows crops that compete with other plant species in their fields for water, sun and soil. The farmer then has to destroy the plants that are competing with his crops through poisons or pulling the offending plants out of the ground.

No matter how you decide to eat something has to go, Our efforts to control and justify what is or isn't ethical to eat gets away from the whole way things exist on our planet. Comparing a plant used as food to an animal used as food is pointless to me because the only personality traits any animal might have is imbued upon him by its beholder. My feeling is if your friendly neighborhood dog/cat gets hungry enough he won't be thinking of how humane your treatment of animals is when he's looking for dinner. Nor will any fish refuse a human meal that come its way whether that person was a pescetarian or not.

I guess you are right. But do you see humans as being above the other species or not? I don't mean that we are better, but rather that we are a species that has a sense of ethics. We are not just Darwinian creatures looking for food.

VegesaurusRex

Personally I have no issue eating an animal. I would kill one to eat as well although it would be for sustenance not for sport. I've caught many fish and eaten them, I've collected eggs and oysters from rocks.

They taste good, they provide nourishment and it's the way our world works and has worked for eons.

In the end, the morality of eating animal flesh cannot be forced on anyone. It's a personal decision only the individual can arrive at. Try as I might I cannot feel bad about eating animals and I'm sure my position is equally untenable to vegetarians and vegans.

I guess you either have this moral sense, or you don't. Yours seems to be there, but perhaps not fully developed yet. Not wanting to kill for sport is a good start.

UponThisRock

So it's moral to kill a non-sentient being for food. Why do you draw the line there?

Yup. Non-sentient = no brain, no nervous system.

But the question is, why do you draw the line there? And isn't your dividing line just as arbitrary as an other?

VegesaurusRex

So it's moral to kill a non-sentient being for food. Why do you draw the line there?

Yup. Non-sentient = no brain, no nervous system.

But the question is, why do you draw the line there? And isn't your dividing line just as arbitrary as an other?

It is hardly arbitrary. My line is drawn at the point where creatures can fear and feel pain, and are aware that they are alive. To put it another way, it is okay to eat anything that does not experience fear or pain and is not aware that it is alive.

tidmutt

Personally I have no issue eating an animal. I would kill one to eat as well although it would be for sustenance not for sport. I've caught many fish and eaten them, I've collected eggs and oysters from rocks.

They taste good, they provide nourishment and it's the way our world works and has worked for eons.

In the end, the morality of eating animal flesh cannot be forced on anyone. It's a personal decision only the individual can arrive at. Try as I might I cannot feel bad about eating animals and I'm sure my position is equally untenable to vegetarians and vegans.

I guess you either have this moral sense, or you don't. Yours seems to be there, but perhaps not fully developed yet. Not wanting to kill for sport is a good start.

Actually, I object to being classified by a vegetarian as "not fully developed". It's that attitude that rankles me it suggests a smug sense of moral superiority which is honestly not deserved. As discussed previously someone can be vegetarian for moral reasons and yet be amoral in plenty of other ways.

tidmutt

I was reading a vegan blog recently (I like to keep an open mind) and the post was interesting. She basically said we are not going to win an argument with an omnivore based on the science of evolution (obviously she feels differently to you Veggie) because the science is not on our side, but so what, ours is a moral argument. So we should stick to the ethics of the debate and avoid the science.

Fair enough, but the moral debate is even less cut and dry than the muddy science. There are no winners in that debate.

VegesaurusRex

Personally I have no issue eating an animal. I would kill one to eat as well although it would be for sustenance not for sport. I've caught many fish and eaten them, I've collected eggs and oysters from rocks.

They taste good, they provide nourishment and it's the way our world works and has worked for eons.

In the end, the morality of eating animal flesh cannot be forced on anyone. It's a personal decision only the individual can arrive at. Try as I might I cannot feel bad about eating animals and I'm sure my position is equally untenable to vegetarians and vegans.

I guess you either have this moral sense, or you don't. Yours seems to be there, but perhaps not fully developed yet. Not wanting to kill for sport is a good start.

Actually, I object to being classified by a vegetarian as "not fully developed". It's that attitude that rankles me it suggests a smug sense of moral superiority which is honestly not deserved. As discussed previously someone can be vegetarian for moral reasons and yet be amoral in plenty of other ways.

Oh, sorry. I see your point. I was referring of course to what you eat only, not anything else, since I know nothing about you. I know nothing about you and apologize, since I have absolutely no reason to believe that you generally act in any way that is inconsistant with the highest moral standards.

With regard to your diet, I would be lying if I said that I didn't regard vegetarians as having the highest dietary moral standards. From my point of view they do. You are, however, free to call me smug, presumptuous and arrogant because of that belief.

VegesaurusRex

I was reading a vegan blog recently (I like to keep an open mind) and the post was interesting. She basically said we are not going to win an argument with an omnivore based on the science of evolution (obviously she feels differently to you Veggie) because the science is not on our side, but so what, ours is a moral argument. So we should stick to the ethics of the debate and avoid the science.

Fair enough, but the moral debate is even less cut and dry than the muddy science. There are no winners in that debate.

Oh but science is on our side. Big time. Both what we know of our anthropological history, and what we know of human and animal physiologhy make us clearly herbovores. If she means that we cannot win the argument that eating meat occasionally won't hurt us, I might have to agree with that. As I have said before, if this country had a veggie centered diet, and ate no more than a few hundred grams of meat per week, as an ethical vegetarian I could live with that.

UponThisRock

So it's moral to kill a non-sentient being for food. Why do you draw the line there?

Yup. Non-sentient = no brain, no nervous system.

But the question is, why do you draw the line there? And isn't your dividing line just as arbitrary as an other?

It is hardly arbitrary. My line is drawn at the point where creatures can fear and feel pain, and are aware that they are alive. To put it another way, it is okay to eat anything that does not experience fear or pain and is not aware that it is alive.

So if I said that humans have a higher form of consciousness than any other species, and said that it was moral to eat anything that wasn't human, how would my dividing line be any more arbitrary than yours?

VegesaurusRex

So it's moral to kill a non-sentient being for food. Why do you draw the line there?

Yup. Non-sentient = no brain, no nervous system.

But the question is, why do you draw the line there? And isn't your dividing line just as arbitrary as an other?

It is hardly arbitrary. My line is drawn at the point where creatures can fear and feel pain, and are aware that they are alive. To put it another way, it is okay to eat anything that does not experience fear or pain and is not aware that it is alive.

So if I said that humans have a higher form of consciousness than any other species, and said that it was moral to eat anything that wasn't human, how would my dividing line be any more arbitrary than yours?

My ethic is based on compassion,which is what an ethic should be based upon. Your ethic is the equivalent of saying, "might makes right." Although strong will almost always win over weak, that in itself has nothing to do with ethics or being right morally.

UponThisRock

My ethic is based on compassion,which is what an ethic should be based upon. Your ethic is the equivalent of saying, "might makes right." Although strong will almost always win over weak, that in itself has nothing to do with ethics or being right morally.

My ethic would be choosing between those that I have compassion for, and those I don't, just as yours does.

VegesaurusRex

My ethic is based on compassion,which is what an ethic should be based upon. Your ethic is the equivalent of saying, "might makes right." Although strong will almost always win over weak, that in itself has nothing to do with ethics or being right morally.

My ethic would be choosing between those that I have compassion for, and those I don't, just as yours does.

Boy, you have really lost me there. I have compassion for those I COULD harm because I am able to. I choose not to harm them. You are saying you arbitrarily decide who to harm, with no rhyme or reason. You like dogs. You eat cows. That is not an ethic. It's doing what you feel like. If you have compassion, you express that to those weaker than you, not merely those weaker than you who managed to stay out of your way.

tidmutt

I was reading a vegan blog recently (I like to keep an open mind) and the post was interesting. She basically said we are not going to win an argument with an omnivore based on the science of evolution (obviously she feels differently to you Veggie) because the science is not on our side, but so what, ours is a moral argument. So we should stick to the ethics of the debate and avoid the science.

Fair enough, but the moral debate is even less cut and dry than the muddy science. There are no winners in that debate.

Oh but science is on our side. Big time. Both what we know of our anthropological history, and what we know of human and animal physiologhy make us clearly herbovores. If she means that we cannot win the argument that eating meat occasionally won't hurt us, I might have to agree with that. As I have said before, if this country had a veggie centered diet, and ate no more than a few hundred grams of meat per week, as an ethical vegetarian I could live with that.

Of course, I don't agree, but this thread is not about that. The blogger was referring to the evidence from our evolutionary history, but that wasn't the point, not really for this thread, the point was she was a vegan saying she wants to keep to the ethical side of the debate.

tidmutt

My ethic is based on compassion,which is what an ethic should be based upon. Your ethic is the equivalent of saying, "might makes right." Although strong will almost always win over weak, that in itself has nothing to do with ethics or being right morally.

My ethic would be choosing between those that I have compassion for, and those I don't, just as yours does.

Boy, you have really lost me there. I have compassion for those I COULD harm because I am able to. I choose not to harm them. You are saying you arbitrarily decide who to harm, with no rhyme or reason. You like dogs. You eat cows. That is not an ethic. It's doing what you feel like. If you have compassion, you express that to those weaker than you, not merely those weaker than you who managed to stay out of your way.

I do see where Rock is coming from though Veggie. Who is to say that sentient life is any more valuable than non-sentient? It's a distinction that you choose to make. The fact that you find it compelling doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

VegesaurusRex

I do see where Rock is coming from though Veggie. Who is to say that sentient life is any more valuable than non-sentient? It's a distinction that you choose to make. The fact that you find it compelling doesn't make it any less arbitrary.


We have reason, which allows us to make reasoned decisions. Your point of view is absolute relativism (!) where NO value is any better than any other value. I mean really, who's to say that the USA is any better than Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, or for that matter Caligulua's Rome. We have a mind and we need to use it to make MEANINGFUL distinctions, based upon empirical evidence. Modern America is living in a relativistic moral cesspool.

I believe some values are absolute. The value of love and kindness, of compassion. Without these values civilization does not exist. Secularists, as you appear to be, would have us believe that all morality is relative. Reason and compassion tell us otherwise. I can tell the difference between good and evil. A creature who fears and feels pain should not be tormented. A creature who loves life should be allowed to live. Carnivores in nature kill. Their biology is such that some of them can only live that way. Humans are not carnivores. We do not have to kill other sentient beings to survive. We have choice, and we have minds to reason out what the choice should be. What the MORAL choice should be.

tidmutt

I do see where Rock is coming from though Veggie. Who is to say that sentient life is any more valuable than non-sentient? It's a distinction that you choose to make. The fact that you find it compelling doesn't make it any less arbitrary.


We have reason, which allows us to make reasoned decisions. Your point of view is absolute relativism (!) where NO value is any better than any other value. I mean really, who's to say that the USA is any better than Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, or for that matter Caligulua's Rome. We have a mind and we need to use it to make MEANINGFUL distinctions, based upon empirical evidence. Modern America is living in a relativistic moral cesspool.

I believe some values are absolute. The value of love and kindness, of compassion. Without these values civilization does not exist. Secularists, as you appear to be, would have us believe that all morality is relative. Reason and compassion tell us otherwise. I can tell the difference between good and evil. A creature who fears and feels pain should not be tormented. A creature who loves life should be allowed to live. Carnivores in nature kill. Their biology is such that some of them can only live that way. Humans are not carnivores. We do not have to kill other sentient beings to survive. We have choice, and we have minds to reason out what the choice should be. What the MORAL choice should be.

I actually do believe some values are absolute but it is still your dividing line, sentient life is worthy, sentient life is not. You say this is an absolute truth others do not. I do not believe it's amoral to kill a sentient being to live. You say they show fear but that fear may be nothing but an adaptation that helped them to survive but you attach human qualities to them because we also show fear. This discussion could lead to questions about consciousness and is it an illusion that stems from the neurological mechanism of our brain, just another adaption to improve our chances of survival. Or is it more than that? I don't want to get too far off the path here but one cannot attach value to sentience without considering consciousness and it's source.

VegesaurusRex

I do see where Rock is coming from though Veggie. Who is to say that sentient life is any more valuable than non-sentient? It's a distinction that you choose to make. The fact that you find it compelling doesn't make it any less arbitrary.


We have reason, which allows us to make reasoned decisions. Your point of view is absolute relativism (!) where NO value is any better than any other value. I mean really, who's to say that the USA is any better than Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, or for that matter Caligulua's Rome. We have a mind and we need to use it to make MEANINGFUL distinctions, based upon empirical evidence. Modern America is living in a relativistic moral cesspool.

I believe some values are absolute. The value of love and kindness, of compassion. Without these values civilization does not exist. Secularists, as you appear to be, would have us believe that all morality is relative. Reason and compassion tell us otherwise. I can tell the difference between good and evil. A creature who fears and feels pain should not be tormented. A creature who loves life should be allowed to live. Carnivores in nature kill. Their biology is such that some of them can only live that way. Humans are not carnivores. We do not have to kill other sentient beings to survive. We have choice, and we have minds to reason out what the choice should be. What the MORAL choice should be.

I actually do believe some values are absolute but it is still your dividing line, sentient life is worthy, sentient life is not. You say this is an absolute truth others do not. I do not believe it's amoral to kill a sentient being to live. You say they show fear but that fear may be nothing but an adaptation that helped them to survive but you attach human qualities to them because we also show fear. This discussion could lead to questions about consciousness and is it an illusion that stems from the neurological mechanism of our brain, just another adaption to improve our chances of survival. Or is it more than that? I don't want to get too far off the path here but one cannot attach value to sentience without considering consciousness and it's source.

I really do not believe that at all. You don't have to know how an internal combustion engine works in order to appreciate a car. Nor do you have to know how what you call the "illusion of consciousness" works to respect beings that have it. There is no brighter more certain dividing line in the world. Those beings on this side of the line have something precious, which gives them the right to be respected.

If you want to discuss the mind body problem, I would be happy to oblige you, but start a different thread. That problem is a tad obscure, and I would thing we would be the only two interested in it.