The vast majority of the animal kingdom kills other animals for food. But somehow at some point we decided it wasn’t cool for humans to do anymore? What about controlled hunting, where animals will die regardless of whether or not you kill them?
Where do you draw the line? Of course oysters and the likes are fine since they’re incapable of suffering, physical or otherwise. But then what if they’re capable of suffering, but incapable of many other thoughts besides instinct? Depending on how you kill them, they might suffer less than a natural death.
Black-and-white statement like yours “it’s wrong, period” are why vegans have bad reputation. Instead, consider focusing on actual issues, such as poor treatment of animals throughout their lives, or the health advantages of not eating meat.
What’s an animal to you? Would you eat a human? How about a dog? Where do you draw the line? Humans used to also shit in the woods. Do you have a toilet?
It is morally wrong. There is no gray area. Their treatment can be extraordinary, but ending an animals life when they’ve either reached a certain age for their meat or because they can’t produce something anymore is still killing a being that can feel pain, fear and love. It hurts my brain that people like you can’t get that, but judging how the modern world works I’m not the least bit surprised.
Let’s take a more extreme situation then. I have chickens. They are free to roam around the yard and do whatever they want. Eventually, when they reach the end of their lives, I kill and eat them. Suffering wise, it’s the exact same as if I hadn’t killed them, they just lose a few of their last days. Honestly it might just save them suffering, considering how most of those last days are spent in pain. Do you still think this is somehow still immoral, despite no additional suffering having been added?
If so, then I guess you’re also one of those people who think humans should live as old as they can, despite their suffering?
Why is eating the poor bird still your argument? Euthenasia is merciful, but you don’t get to decide when and you don’t do the killing yourself. And why even bring up their suffering when most chickens live arguably the most suffer-filled existence of all factory farmed animals? You don’t care about their suffering even in this hypothetical scenario.
What’s your argument agaisnt it though? This is a hypothetical scenario, what I care about or not doesn’t matter. Is it that somehow it’s the act of choosing when they die that’s immoral?
Forget about their suffering existense, in this scenario they have a better life than in nature since they don’t have to worry about predation while still being able to roam about.
They… don’t have brains, that’s proven. Sure, they can process information, but so can mushrooms and even some plants, such as trees. Will you stop eating those too?
It makes no sense that a living creature would not have a system in place to detect and avoid harm. Whether we see it as suffering from our point of view or not is irrelevant.
Will you stop eating those too?
I can and have. The primary thing that should inform one on what to eat is and should always be nutrition.
I can and have
You… don’t eat plants and mushrooms anymore? What kind of diet is left then?
It’s the same with plants, they too react to stimuli, that’s how they avoid harm. Like how some plants become “soft” in the face of harsh weather to avoid breaking. Or others physically move. If you cut a plant but not fully, you can see the plant try to repair it. How is this any different from a brain-less animal reacting to its stimuli?
I don’t see avoiding suffering as a tenable or even meaningful way of deciding what to eat, and so I choose based on the effects of what I put inside my body. I eat only animal sourced foods.
How is this any different from a brain-less animal reacting to its stimuli?
I don’t think it is any different at all. A narrow definition of “suffering” is reductionist and inadequate.
I mean I agree, I’m all for a plant-based diet for health reasons. But most vegans out there, including the one I was responding to, only use suffering as their argument. Here the part I disagreed with was the “always morally wrong” blanket statement.
There are so many things you can’t prove and yet still act upon, this is a stupid conversation. For literally every other animal out there, it’s proven that pain is only felt once it reaches the brain. Why would you somehow assume muscles now have a mini brain to process it locally.
The vast majority of the animal kingdom kills other animals for food. But somehow at some point we decided it wasn’t cool for humans to do anymore? What about controlled hunting, where animals will die regardless of whether or not you kill them?
Where do you draw the line? Of course oysters and the likes are fine since they’re incapable of suffering, physical or otherwise. But then what if they’re capable of suffering, but incapable of many other thoughts besides instinct? Depending on how you kill them, they might suffer less than a natural death.
Black-and-white statement like yours “it’s wrong, period” are why vegans have bad reputation. Instead, consider focusing on actual issues, such as poor treatment of animals throughout their lives, or the health advantages of not eating meat.
What’s an animal to you? Would you eat a human? How about a dog? Where do you draw the line? Humans used to also shit in the woods. Do you have a toilet?
It is morally wrong. There is no gray area. Their treatment can be extraordinary, but ending an animals life when they’ve either reached a certain age for their meat or because they can’t produce something anymore is still killing a being that can feel pain, fear and love. It hurts my brain that people like you can’t get that, but judging how the modern world works I’m not the least bit surprised.
Let’s take a more extreme situation then. I have chickens. They are free to roam around the yard and do whatever they want. Eventually, when they reach the end of their lives, I kill and eat them. Suffering wise, it’s the exact same as if I hadn’t killed them, they just lose a few of their last days. Honestly it might just save them suffering, considering how most of those last days are spent in pain. Do you still think this is somehow still immoral, despite no additional suffering having been added?
If so, then I guess you’re also one of those people who think humans should live as old as they can, despite their suffering?
Why is eating the poor bird still your argument? Euthenasia is merciful, but you don’t get to decide when and you don’t do the killing yourself. And why even bring up their suffering when most chickens live arguably the most suffer-filled existence of all factory farmed animals? You don’t care about their suffering even in this hypothetical scenario.
What’s your argument agaisnt it though? This is a hypothetical scenario, what I care about or not doesn’t matter. Is it that somehow it’s the act of choosing when they die that’s immoral?
Forget about their suffering existense, in this scenario they have a better life than in nature since they don’t have to worry about predation while still being able to roam about.
this can’t be proven
They… don’t have brains, that’s proven. Sure, they can process information, but so can mushrooms and even some plants, such as trees. Will you stop eating those too?
It makes no sense that a living creature would not have a system in place to detect and avoid harm. Whether we see it as suffering from our point of view or not is irrelevant.
I can and have. The primary thing that should inform one on what to eat is and should always be nutrition.
It’s the same with plants, they too react to stimuli, that’s how they avoid harm. Like how some plants become “soft” in the face of harsh weather to avoid breaking. Or others physically move. If you cut a plant but not fully, you can see the plant try to repair it. How is this any different from a brain-less animal reacting to its stimuli?
I don’t see avoiding suffering as a tenable or even meaningful way of deciding what to eat, and so I choose based on the effects of what I put inside my body. I eat only animal sourced foods.
I don’t think it is any different at all. A narrow definition of “suffering” is reductionist and inadequate.
I mean I agree, I’m all for a plant-based diet for health reasons. But most vegans out there, including the one I was responding to, only use suffering as their argument. Here the part I disagreed with was the “always morally wrong” blanket statement.
I eat all kinds of animals. I’m just saying you can’t prove muscles can’t suffer
I don’t get it. Pain is processed in the brain, and they don’t have one. Are you implying the muscle itself somehow feels pain? But what processes it?
I’m not saying they can suffer. I’m saying you can’t prove they are incapable.
There are so many things you can’t prove and yet still act upon, this is a stupid conversation. For literally every other animal out there, it’s proven that pain is only felt once it reaches the brain. Why would you somehow assume muscles now have a mini brain to process it locally.
I haven’t assumed any such thing.
Since a brain is required to process pain, how else do you suppose they would feel it?