Paolo wrote:Emma Woolgatherer wrote:... obviously you don't think a quick (and involuntary) death is "perfectly acceptable" for a human being.
You assume too much here, I actually do think that a quick death is perfectly acceptable for human beings and is preferable to a slow painful death. You added "involuntary" ...
I added "involuntary" because we were talking about slaughtering animals for meat, and as far as I know the Ameglian Major Cow from the Restaurant at the End of the Universe is not yet a reality, and animals are not yet offering themselves up to be slaughtered, cooked and eaten.
Paolo wrote:... and although I do not think it is right to go around killing people, I do think that too much value can be placed on life ...
Yes, I agree. Nevertheless, just as I don't think it is right to go around killing people, unless it's absolutely necessary or unavoidable, I also don't think it is all right to go around killing other animals, unless it's absolutely necessary or unavoidable.
Paolo wrote:(after all, we are just disposable transport vessels for our DNA) ...
Is that just a flippant throw-away comment, or do you really think that?
Paolo wrote:... and under some circumstances (and with approval from society) it is acceptable for a human life to be taken.
And under some circumstances it is acceptable for the life of a non-human animal to be taken. But what you said was that a quick death is "perfectly acceptable", not that it is acceptable in certain circumstances.
Paolo wrote:By willing I mean they should understand what is involved and still be willing. Many people eat meat who would not dream of having to slaughter or butcher (or sometimes even cook) it. If the only people who ate meat were those who willing to kill and process it there would be more vegetarians.
I can't deny that. But surely that's not
your reason for thinking that "people willing to eat meat should also be willing to rear it, slaughter it and butcher it themselves (not just buy it in a sealed plastic tray)". You haven't explained why you think that way. There are plenty of people in this world who do essential jobs that other people are not willing to do. If the only people who flushed their bodily wastes into the sewage system were those who were willing to clean and maintain and repair said sewage system, risking gastroenteritis, hepatitis, Weil's disease, skin and eye infections and occupational asthma, then ... well, some of us would install our own composting toilets, which would be great, but the rest of us would be knee-deep in shit. If the only people who bought and ate food of any kind were those who were willing to grow it and process it and package it and transport it and sell it in supermarkets, then most of us would starve. If the only people who went to hospital were those who were willing to empty bed pans ... You get the idea. Most people "wouldn't dream" of doing all sorts of things that are essential in an effective society. So I ask again, why do you think that people willing to eat meat should also be willing to rear it, slaughter it and butcher it themselves? If other people are willing to rear meat, slaughter it and butcher it for them, why should they have to worry about it? After all, some people are squeamish, or clumsy, or weak, through no fault of their own. Why should it be only the strong-armed and strong-stomached who are allowed to tuck into a juicy steak or succulent turkey breast?
Paolo wrote:Emma Woolgatherer wrote:Does that fact that something tastes (or sounds, or looks, or smells, or feels) wonderful provide justification for an act that deprives a sentient creature of its life and causes it at least some pain and distress?
Yes, but with provisions. If something is rare (endangered rather than undercooked), don't kill it. If something is wild and not a pest, don't kill it. If something is domesticated or has a population large enough to render it a nuisance (to individuals of it's own population in particular) then I would consider it fair game for a humane kill and then eat it.
In the case of cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens and turkeys, "domesticated" means "bred for food". And when it comes to killing and eating animals that are bred for food, the issue isn't just about people killing and eating those animals; it's about them being
bred for food in the first place. Being bred to provide a "high yield", being bred to maximise profitability. What right to do we have to artificially select animals for breeding, to tinker with their DNA, which clearly you think is very important, primarily for the purposes of making money, and not for the sake of the health of those animals?
Paolo wrote:Dog, cat, horse, rabbit, even humans in some cultures - they're all food and I for one am not confident enough that our society is righteous enough to say that people who eat them are wrong.
Again, I kind of agree with you. And I'd go further, and say that many of the people who eat whales, antelope, monkeys, scaly anteaters and even gorillas
are not wrong. But still, I'm not sure that I understand your perspective. You said that your "personal opinions about eating meat" come down to your "views on morality". So it is a moral issue for you, not merely a personal matter of drawing an arbitrary line where you want to (see below). The implication is that you think that eating meat is morally right, or at least morally acceptable [---][/---] with the provisos you give: that the meat should be "humanely" reared and slaughtered, and that wild animals should not be eaten unless they have large and unsustainable populations. What exactly is it that we owe non-human animals, do you think? What responsibilities do we have? What is your objection, exactly, to killing wild animals with small populations for food? Is it all about DNA?
Paolo wrote:To be honest, I do agree with you that people should eat less meat. The meat that people do eat should be as humanely produced as possible. However, we evolved as meat eaters, our society is geared up towards eating some meat (and has been for a very, very, very long time). My personal view is that the human population needs to be reduced quite dramatically ...
But we evolved as enthusiastic sexual reproducers. Our societies are geared up towards enthusiastic sexual reproduction (and have been for a very, very, very long time)...
Paolo wrote:My personal view is that the human population needs to be reduced quite dramatically for any farming, cereal or meat, to be morally justifiable, when one considers the environmental damage and suffering to wildlife that they both cause. Perhaps I should go fruitarian? Joking aside, all agriculture has an massive impact on the planet, so if it's a case of drawing an arbitrary line somewhere, I choose to draw it where I want.
Evidently. But could you be drawing it in a better place? After all, the choice is not simply between eating meat and eating cereal. People who eat meat eat cereal too, directly and indirectly. The evidence seems to be pretty overwhelming that a largely plant-based diet for the planet's population would be much more sustainable, in terms of carbon dioxide and methane emissions, energy use, water use and land use, than a diet that includes a significant amount of meat. But farming of some kind is, surely, morally justifiable because there is, at present, no alternative. We can't go back to being hunter-gatherers. Without farming, billions of people would die. Even if you think we're just temporary vessels for DNA, that would surely be a bit of a tragedy, no? I mean, trying to reduce the population through improving education and women's rights and living standards is one thing, but mass starvation can't be an attractive option.
Emma