Why is it wrong to eat meat?
Just to clarify for the people who got sent here by Google: it is not wrong to eat meat. Why? Three Basic Facts.But let's look at this: Why is it wrong to eat meat?
"Regardless of what we think about the more controversial aspects of animal rights, such as medical experimentation, there is a general consensus in our society that it is ethically reprehensible to set a cat on fire for entertainment. However, since we do not need to eat meat to survive, when we choose to eat meat, we are choosing to inflict death and suffering on others simply for the pleasure of tasting meat."The key words here: the pleasure of tasting meat. This is a theme which is common to the most of the vegan/AR thinking. Humans eat meat for no other reason but to "gain a few moments of trivial pleasure."
True, humans (mostly) find eating meat to be something pleasurable. The question one has to ask here is, why is that so? The answer is simple: animals enjoy food that is good for them. Humans enjoy meat and sweets, goats enjoy young leaves and shoots. It is a specific reaction, as you can find out by tasting a young leaf: it is disgusting to humans, but a goat would enjoy it. If you enjoy your food, you have an additional incentive to look for it and eat it, which will make you stronger, and therefore more likely to survive. Rather simple evolutionary logic.
This makes the burning cat analogy used here a very flawed one. Burning a cat for fun really has no other purpose than enjoying its pain, and usually has nothing to do with the cat itself. Instead, the cat is a symbol for something else, such as abusive boss, restricting parents, or any other source of perceived injustice. Slaughtering a chicken so you can eat it, on the other hand, is something completely different. One doesn't slaughter a chicken so one can enjoy it's pain, one slaughters it so one can eat it.
posted by Leo @ 22:00
11 Comments:
"The answer is simple: animals enjoy food that is good for them."
So the basis of the argument is that because we are attracted to the taste of something it's good for us? Surely amongst a population of people stuffing their maws with cupcakes, doughnuts, BIG MACs® etc. you can't believe that simply because one finds something "good tasting" that it is also beneficial to their health & survival, can you? As for the goat, here is a whole list of items goats love to eat that can cause such severe symptoms as blindness, convulsions and death. http://www.orecity.k12.or.us/4H/poison.html
But this whole article is really a digression from its title. It could be titled something like "Why is Meat Good for You?" or "Why Do You Need Meat?"; but as noted above, I feel that your "if it feels good, it must BE good" ideology could use rethinking. Perhaps I'm missing something though.
[bright_black(at)hotmail(dot)com]
> So the basis of the argument is that because we are attracted to the taste of something it's good for us?
Not exactly. The basis of this argument is this: if some kind of food is good for the animal, the animal is likely, during the course of its evolution, to develop a taste for it. The opposite is also true: if some kind of food is bad for the animal, it is likely to start disliking the taste of it. Why do humans like the sweet, and don't like the bitter? Neither sweetness nor bitterness will do as any harm in themselves, but sweet means life-giving sugars, and bitter means poisonous alkaloids. I'm not arguing that just because something tastes good, it must be good for you, but if something's good for you, you're likely to enjoy its taste.
> Surely amongst a population of people stuffing their maws with cupcakes, doughnuts, BIG MACs(r) etc. you can't believe that simply because one finds something "good tasting" that it is also beneficial to their health & survival, can you?
This is an example if a behavior which makes perfect sense in the conditions it has evolved in, but is completely unsuited to conditions in which it has to function. The almost unlimited availability of high-energy food in which the 'population of people stuffing their maws with cupcakes, doughnuts, BIG MACs(r) etc.' (note that two out of three of those foods aren't even meat-based) lives in is a very new, and still rather limited condition of the human evolution. Normally, overabundance of food is either rare, or it doesn't exist. In such conditions, it makes perfect sense to eat all the available food you can today, because tomorrow it will be gone, and will stay gone until some possibly distant, but definitely uncertain future. If it's also high-energy food, even better. This is not something only humans do. Over-weight, over-fed American pets are becoming as common as over-weight, over-fed Americans, aren't they?
> As for the goat, here is a whole list of items goats love to eat that can cause such severe symptoms as blindness, convulsions and death. http://www.orecity.k12.or.us/4H/poison.html
This is a list of plants that are generally poisonous to livestock. It doesn't state that goats especially like those plants. The way I read it, it is a list of common plants that, if a goat starts showing signs of poisoning, can be used to identify the source of poisoning, and increase the chances of successful treatment. In case of many of these plants, livestock can come into contact with them only because humans have brought them together, so it is another case of a right thing to do, but a wrong situation in which to do it.
Regardless of this, I agree the goat is a bad example; goats will really eat anything. Plants, paper, shoes, wire insulation, anything. Perhaps this is because goats can eat, digest, and live on so many things that their opportunistic, eat-everything-in-sight behavior is a much greater benefit to their survival than few cases of goats who have died because they had eaten something they shouldn't had harm their chances?
The rabbit would be a better example. Offer a carrot and a one-year-old tree sapling to a rabbit that has never eaten either. (I'm not very fond of hypothetical situations such as this one, but I believe it is a good illustration of my argument.) Rabbits can eat, and utilize, both, but to you want to bet that one will get eaten first?
Or, perhaps, wolves? When wolves kill their prey, the first thing that gets eaten is the liver. One can hardly assume that the wolves have done any kind of study which would tell them that the liver contains more vitamins and minerals than other kinds of meat, yet it is the first thing they go for. And how does one make an animal do something? One makes the action rewarding. The most obvious way, in this case, is a nice aroma.
There are many, many examples for this, really. Why do animals prefer ripe to green fruit? Why do leaf-eaters prefer young leaves to the old ones (this is what I meant with my goat)? Both ripe fruit and young leaves are more easily digested and have more readily available nutrients than green fruit and old leaves. It's not some mystical animal- sixth-sense-insight, which tells them what is good, and what is not, it's the plain old taste of food. In the case of fruit, the difference should be obvious. I've tried both young and old leaves, and I honestly can't tell the difference, they're both equally disgusting to me; but then again, they're both also nutritionally useless to me, which proves something as well, doesn't it? But I'm sure your average caterpillar can tell the difference.
> But this whole article is really a digression from its title.
This article is a response to another article, which argues that humans eat meat only for pleasure, titled 'Why is it wrong to eat meat?', a part of which I have quoted, and which can be found at the provided link (http://ar.vegnews.org/cat_analogy.html). Hence the title.
> It could be titled something like "Why is Meat Good for You?" or "Why Do You Need Meat?";
In this article, I am not arguing that eating meat is good for humans. I am arguing that even though eating meat inarguably gives (most) humans pleasure, the pleasure is not there just for its own sake. There is a reason why humans, and other animals, enjoy things they enjoy.
> but as noted above, I feel that your "if it feels good, it must BE good" ideology could use rethinking. Perhaps I'm missing something though.
What I was saying is not ideology, it is fact. And I certainly didn't mean it the way you put it, which I hope I was able to explain.
-Just a few of your stand-out responses and my following reactions.
"I'm not arguing that just because something tastes good, it must be good for you, but if something's good for you, you're likely to enjoy its taste."
Some things that we have adapted to enjoy the taste of are good for us, yes. The problem though is that we can't completely discern an item's nutritional fitness based solely on taste. Some things that have an unpleasant taste to us are quite good for us and vice versa. I still wonder what the nutritional value of boogers is to a pre-schooler. ;-)
"Over-weight, over-fed American pets are becoming as common as over-weight, over-fed Americans, aren't they?"
A-greed. I follow your line of thinking and have no objections to it's foundation. It's also an interesting point you bring up with American pets being overindulgent as well as humans. Despite our differences from (non-human) animals we still fall into the same biological and evolutionary 'traps' if you will. The difference is, we have the mental capacity to realize the problem and hopefully deal with it. Unfortunately evolution is a very slow and painful adaptation to change and may have to be supplemented with human intelligence (scary, I know) with regard to the situation. In the case of our pets, I really don't see any reason why they should be allowed to overindulge if we are in charge of their food access, quantity and quality.
"This article is a response to another article, which argues that humans eat meat only for pleasure, titled 'Why is it wrong to eat meat?', a part of which I have quoted, and which can be found at the provided link (http://ar.vegnews.org/cat_analogy.html). Hence the title."
I originally thought it was the other side of the coin on the moral/ethical aspects of eating meat, rather than digging into why people might find the taste palatable.
"There is a reason why humans, and other animals, enjoy things they enjoy."
And a reason they don't enjoy things they don't enjoy. There are certainly reasons for not doing things simply because you find them enjoyable when it puts you or others in danger, or is illegal, immoral, or unethical. There also are reasons for doing what you don't enjoy to help others. I could go on, but it would do neither of us any good.
All-in-all I agree with your points more than I originally thought now that I'm more clear on the direction in which you were steering. :-)
Let's get this out of the way; I'm a Vegetarian.
Meat isn't necessarily good for people. It can contain a lot of fat and cholesterol which can lead to obesity, heart disease, and circulation problems. Also meat isn't required to live. I'm very healthy and my mom's doctor actually liked the fact that we chose this lifestyle. Also the original quote is talking about how animals are treated in places like factory farms and slaughter houses. I'm not against eating meat, organic farmers and people who raise their own animals for food to ensure their health get my respect, but a lot of places cause suffering to animals in order to produce meat that isn't necessary for most people to live.
Now that I've been reminded of my responsibility towards this site...
In the conditions of the human evolution, meat wasn't only necessarily good, it was necessary. It is meat that had allowed us, a species of tropical monkey, to live everywhere we live today. Hunting had made the social behaviour and the communication we're so proud of a must. And it is those same fats which lead to obesity, heart disease and circulation problems that had allowed us to waste some time on inventing the computers you and I use instead of spending it all on jumping from tree to tree, picking fruit all day long.
Of course, eating too much, meat or anything else, is bad for you. As far as obesity and such problems go, the carbohydrate abuse is as much a problem as the fat abuse. There isn't a trace of animal in Coke, so why do people drink the diet version if they're trying to stay slim? And let's admit it, soya isn't that good for you, either, especially if you're a male.
True, meat isn't required to live. Are you saying that just because we don't have to do something also means that we shouldn't do it? Kind of a strange thing for a computer user to say, isn't it?
And finally, I would disagree that the originally quoted article is about factory farms and slaughterhouses. It is about the author's perception that we eat meat (and according to him, that is completely unethical for other reasons) only because we get pleasure from doing it.
What kind of goat will not die from eating a wild cherry leaf?
I don't know.
If people like things they usualy want to have them in their lives as much as posssible. People that feel that meat is bad to eat because of cholesterol (IDK if thats spelled right) are ignoring the fact that there is medication for it. My dad takes fish oil to keep his cholesterol low. I think you shouldn't be obsessed with meat but you can eat it to a certain degree and it won't harm you. If you eat all veggetables you won't get as much protein as someone who eats meat. On the other hand people who eat meat all the time are more likely to develop heart and circulation problems. So what i believe is that you should eat some of both. A balanced diet is healthy. That is why i believe that people who say it is wrong to eat meat. I for one eat meat and i enjoy doing so. I wouldnt get mad at someone for not eating meat and refuse to be near them. I mean look at the food prymid veggies and meat are on it as well as bread and other thins like candy. Although they are all on the prymid it is still important to enjoy in moderation. If you like veggetables good for you. If you like meat thats ok. Its just important for both groups to not pig out. I had a friend that was a veggatarian i didnt argue with him about how he should eat and i think that IT IS STUPID to try to force your opinion on someone else.
as an add on to my last post a few moments ago it doesnt matter weather u eat a plant or an animal because they are both living things science states.
-all living things are composed of cells.
-plants are living things because they are made up of cells.
SO it realy doesnt matter
The fact remains that it is not necessary for humans to eat meat for survival.
Sure, in places where farming is not possible such as the desert it might be, but for the average person it is not required.
There is a difference between the time when we were cavemen and now. We have evolved to the point where eating meat is a choice. The only reason left to eat meat is because it tastes better than other things to people who a). have grown up eating mainly meat and have therefore do not developed a sense of taste for other things, or b). have never actually eaten or prepared a delicious vegetarian meal.
I personally would much rather eat a vegetarian yellow curry with roti topped with slices of banana, yogurt and chutney sauce than a steak. (I'm hungry now)
My point is that the argument that "meat tastes better" is invalid because the people saying that have never actually experimented with vegetarian dishes.
My other point: Is it morally justified to "mass produce" (lets face the facts here) animals for the sole purpose of killing them just to satisfy our taste buds?
The problem is that in "civilized" (lol) society one is not faced with that dilemma. All the "dirty work" is being done in the background. All we have to do is pick up some fillet at the supermarket.
Would you still eat veal if you had to kill a calf in order to have your precious steak? Or would you rather just eat a sandwich (without meat) and spare its life?
Would you slaughter a pig to have ham on that Hawaiian pizza? Or leave the animal in peace and substitute the ham for mushrooms.
Now lets apply that to children. Do you think 10 year old little Jessica would still be so happy to get those chicken nuggets if she witnessed the ENTIRE manufacturing process leading up to the the moment the guy packs it in a bag together with a little toy chicken?
I don't think so. And I think it's pretty twisted how we delude not just ourselves but our offspring as well.
OK, by point.
> The fact remains that it is not necessary for humans to eat meat for survival.
I agree. Along with so many other things that have never, ever been necessary for survival, that we do anyway.
> Sure, in places where farming is not possible such as the desert it might be, but for the average person it is not required.
Just what exactly is the average person? If you take the whole human population, the average person would greatly benefit from more meat in her diet.
> There is a difference between the time when we were cavemen and now. We have evolved to the point where eating meat is a choice.
Evolve isn't the word I'd use.
> The only reason left to eat meat is because it tastes better than other things to people
No, the only reason to eat anything, meat included, is because it's food.
> who a). have grown up eating mainly meat and have therefore do not developed a sense of taste for other things, or b). have never actually eaten or prepared a delicious vegetarian meal.
I'm not going to bother replying to this exercise in snobbery...
> I personally would much rather eat a vegetarian yellow curry with roti topped with slices of banana, yogurt and chutney sauce than a steak.
I'd eat either, depending on the mood.
> My point is that the argument that "meat tastes better" is invalid
I agree, it's a silly argument, since 'better' is a matter of taste.
> because the people saying that have never actually experimented with vegetarian dishes.
I suppose that is true of the people who actually say that meat tastes better. Now try wrapping your head around this one: why would tasting one delicious dish make a person forever stop eating another delicious dish?
> My other point: Is it morally justified to "mass produce" (lets face the facts here) animals for the sole purpose of killing them just to satisfy our taste buds?
Short answer: yes. The long answer is this entire site.
> The problem is that in "civilized" (lol) society one is not faced with that dilemma. All the "dirty work" is being done in the background. All we have to do is pick up some fillet at the supermarket.
The society had been 'civilised' for centuries before that term entered the English language some four or five hundred years ago. The 'dirty work' has moved into the background much more recently. Depending on how rural one, or the people one knows are, it isn't in the background at all.
> Would you still eat veal if you had to kill a calf in order to have your precious steak? Or would you rather just eat a sandwich (without meat) and spare its life? Would you slaughter a pig to have ham on that Hawaiian pizza? Or leave the animal in peace and substitute the ham for mushrooms.
I've killed anymals for food before, and I expect I'll kill animals for food again.
> Now lets apply that to children. Do you think 10 year old little Jessica would still be so happy to get those chicken nuggets if she witnessed the ENTIRE manufacturing process leading up to the the moment the guy packs it in a bag together with a little toy chicken?
Probably, yes.
> I don't think so. And I think it's pretty twisted how we delude not just ourselves but our offspring as well.
Which is why you need to stop as soon as possible. Or don't. Mass production and overabundance of food have given you the luxury of that choice. But please don't demand of other people to accept your particular delusion of how the (living) world works.
Post a Comment
<< Home