Don't we feel for those who are intellectually challenged. We don't go around mistreating people with disabilities do we? We do call severely brain damaged people ''vegetables'', right? Yet we extend our compassion to them. So, how far are ''vegetable'' humans from actual vegetables? — TheMadFool

We extend compassion for them because of the harm it would cause to those who love them. It has nothing to do with causing harm to the brain damaged person himself, but more about causing harm (mental distress) to the people who love that brain damaged person. If a person had no family or ties to anyone, and could not recover from this brain dead (vegetable) state, I don't' see a problem killing him/her. But to compare that to plants, is a bit silly and slightly absurd.

No, because you are a vegan. The "all other studies" are going to be studies trying to prove veganism, just like Davis's was trying to prove meat eating. Its confirmation bias, we all have it. All we can say without bias is that there are arguments for either case presented by intelligent, well-informed experts. Therefore, no case is unequivocally correct from an ethical pont of view — Pseudonym

You insisted on the numbers when you assumed they worked in your favor. Now I've shown how they don't and you're calling me biased.... Oh the irony!

Yes, Davis's study. The mere existence of counter arguments does not render a study no longer evidence. — Pseudonym

I didn't argue against Davis' study. I used it to prove you wrong.
And also, you were JUST arguing that you disagree with his study.... Make up your mind.

None of these systems use land which could be used for growing arable crops, so if you don't eat these forms of meat you are directly requiring a greater quantity of land to be taken up with agriculture — Pseudonym

That model is not sustainable for feeding the entire world's population.
But I did look up sheep farming in the UK:
https://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/know-your-sheep/year-on-a-sheep-farm/
And while it does seem much nicer than the usual factory farming, it does still require fields to grow plant food on with which to feed the sheep. The farmers supplement the sheeps diet with hay and pellets. Not sure how much it is, but it doesn't come out to zero acres of farmable land used.

I feel that I have but I'll try it again.

I'll think upon the action at hand. I'll apply this or that moral calculus as an exercise. Then I'll make a decision based upon what seems best, relative to the things that are important to me. I'll reflect upon what I've done in the past, and make adjustments based upon said reflections.

I don't think this is unique to me. But it's a fair description of how I decide things.

You insisted on the numbers when you assumed they worked in your favor. — NKBJ

For literally the last time I am not claiming any figures work in anyone's favour, I am claiming that there exists a sufficient diversity of figures that the issue is not settled. all that it required for me to make this claim is the existence of a single well-informed intelligent scientist with expertise in the field who has concluded that eating meat (under certain circumstances) causes less harm than the equivalent quantity of vegetables (under certain circumstances). Such a study obviously exists, the "2003 article in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Steven Davis advanced the argument that fewer animals would be harmed if we consumed a diet containing large herbivores (namely cattle) fed on pasture than if we consumed a vegan diet". You may well disagree with his conclusions, other scientists may well disagree with his conclusions, but unless he disagrees with his own conclusions then there remains one intelligent, well-informed expert who has concluded that meat eating (in certain circumstances) does not cause more harm than vegetable eating.

even within our own calculations. I have calculated them to be roughly equivalent (less harmful for wild meat), You calculated it to 15 times more harmful. @Uber, kindly linked to a large number of studies, the first one of which calculates it to be only 1.5-2 times more harmful (for average diets, and agrees that "exceptions may occur"). The matter is very clearly not settled. It is therefore entirely reasonable to take one of the currently held conclusions and use it to support one's ethical choices.

I didn't argue against Davis' study. I used it to prove you wrong. — NKBJ

How exactly? the Davis study concludes -

1. Vegan diets are not bloodless diets. Millions of animals of the field die
every year to provide products used in vegan diets.
2. Several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer
animals than the vegan model.
3. More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the number
of field animals killed in different crop production systems.
4. Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based
plus pasture-forage-ruminant systems.

How does that prove me wrong when all I'm arguing is that there exists a well-informed expert study which concludes that meat eating causes less harm than vegetable protein?

That model is not sustainable for feeding the entire world's population. — NKBJ

Who said anything about sustainable for the worlds population. The title of this thread is "Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?" The OP asks clearly "Does anyone here eat animals, while also adhering to the moral trifecta (Empathy, compassion and ethical consistency)? If so, I'd like to know how?. No one mentioned anything about the diet that would be best for the average urban dwelling occupant of westernised industrial countries to adopt in order to cause least environmental damage overall. If you want to have that debate then open your own thread on that topic, I will most likely argue entirely in agreement that veganism is a large part of the solution to that problem, but that's not what this thread is about.

But I did look up sheep farming in the UK: — NKBJ

Well you obviously didn't look very hard (confirmation bias, as I mentioned before - we all have it), since on the very second paragraph it states clearly that "Every farm is different, and there are a huge variety of systems and schedules in use across the UK. For this example, we will look at a traditional lowland farm producing lambs to put delicious meat on the table", and later "often feeding more nuts or pellets (a concentrated high-nutrient feed) and less forage (hay and straw)...If there is not enough grass, supplement feeding will be offered to ensure the ewes keep supplying enough milk.... Some farmers also offer extra feed to the lambs so, when they stop feeding on only milk from their mum (at about six weeks of age), they will grow fast on feed and grass."[my highlights]. I'd be hard pushed to find a more classic example of confirmation bias. You've read an article wanting to find that sheep farming using supplemental feeding, so your brain has missed out all the 'if's, 'some's and 'often's and just left you with an unequivocal conclusion that all sheep farming using supplemental feeding. You haven't even felt the need to find out how much before coming back to me no less vitriolic than you were before, nor apparently looked into the fact that the hay meadows which provide the supplementary feed are so valuable to wildlife that they are an internationally protected habitat.

I will summarise my position again so that we can avoid wasting further time.

The OP states that eating animals is unethical because of the unnecessary harm it causes animals. This is incorrect because there exist several scenarios under which eating meat causes less harm than growing the equivalent quantity of vegetables. Those scenarios are not available to some sections of the population, and so for the those people, vegan diets might be the least harmful, for others fully carnivorous diets might be the least harmful. It depends of the ecosystem one is part of.

I want a world where HUMANS can minimize net harm that THEY cause — chatterbears

That's fine, but it's a long way from your original claim which was that no-one could eat meat and remain ethically consistent. Now we're talking just about what you want, your personal entirely subjective desire. That's not what I want. I want a world where creatures are allowed to express their natural desires to the maximum extent. Harm and the causing of harm are only issues for me insofar as the avoidance of such constitutes a natural desire. I have very little interest in who caused the harm. You and I have different ethical frameworks.

If you wouldn't justify raising a human needless for food, why would you justify it for an animal? — chatterbears

As I've said now dozens of times, I would justify it on the principle of least harm. If that animal were raised on kitchen scraps (as our pigs are), or raised on upland pastures unsuitable for arable (such as the lamb I buy), or raised in woodland already being used to grow local timber (such as the deer I shoot), or are raised within arable crops and are actually causing a reduction in crop density and so forcing farmers to use more land (such as the rabbit I shoot) - then raising and killing that animal for food causes less harm than farming the equivalent quantity of protein in vegetables.

And to be consistent, should it follow that we can eat humans that contain a lower ability in thought, such as a mentally disabled person? — chatterbears

No, that's the point. You are being inconsistent by saying that you would not incarcerate the wolves for killing unnecessarily, but you would incarcerate a human even though that human might well have the intellectual capacity of a wolf. You claimed that you would have this difference in position because Humans "have a higher ability in thought, and can understand a deeper level of right and wrong." If that difference can be used to justify taking the freedom from an intellectually disabled human, then why can it not be used to justify taking the freedom from an intellectually capable (and therefore equally intelligent) wolf? You are being inconsistent. You have argued that there exists no trait which justifies the different treatment of humans and other animals when it comes to suffering, and yet you are claiming that when it comes to incarceration for the crime of killing without obvious necessity (incarceration being undoubtedly harmful), you would treat the wolf differently to the intellectually disabled human. Why?

You're just floundering. I could counter your whole post point by point (yet again), but I'm sort of tired of doing that.

Suffice to say that everything you say is about as logical as taking my claim that hunting kills 14 times more animals than harvesting plants, and Uber's claim that animal agriculture is 1.5-2 times worse for the environment and somehow deriving from that the conclusion that we don't agree on the severity of harm caused by a meat versus plant-based diets or that our numbers don't match. Absolutely ridiculous. I'll spell it out in case you're still confused: Uber and I were talking about different things, and our numbers were representing different aspects of harm.

Since everything you say is as well-though through as the above, and no matter what I say you're going to apply the same illogic to "counter" my claims, engaging with you any further would just be a waste of my time and energy.

Brilliant, "I could counter all your claims but I'm not going to", we used to argue like that at school.

Show me where I claimed that you and Uber don't agree on the severity of harm. That whole section of my argument is based entirely on the fact that there are different ways of measuring harm. One of those ways works out at hunting being 15 times more harmful than arable, another works it out at only twice as harmful, a third (Davis's) works it out as being less harmful. I strongly suspect a forth (eliminating all factory farming and supplentary feeding) would work out even less harmful, but since no one's done the calculations that will have to remain speculation.

You argument seems unable to move on from "most ways of farming meat come out worse than farming vegetables according to most experts- therefore all ways of farming meat are worse than farming vegetables. I don't know if you have much experience with basic logic but the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Show me where I claimed that you and Uber don't agree on the severity of harm. — Pseudonym

Okay:

You calculated it to 15 times more harmful. Uber, kindly linked to a large number of studies, the first one of which calculates it to be only 1.5-2 times more harmful — Pseudonym

I mean... Are you TRYING to be a strawperson? :rofl:

That shows that your calculations and one of the many studies Uber quoted do not agree. It says nothing whatsoever about which of the many varied conclusions Uber agreed with (possibly all of them), so no, it's not a claim that you an Uber don't agree, it's a claim of exactly what I said it was - there are many studies which reach a variety of conclusions depending on the method.

You: uber and nkbj disagree.
Me: no, we don't. *shows evidence*
You: I didn't say you disagreed!
Me: yes, you did *shows evidence*
You: uber and nkbj disagree.

Like I said, not worth my time.

So a collection of bad reasoning, when put together, somehow creates a good whole reasoning? This makes no sense.

An argument can consistent of multiple justifications, but each justification needs to be valid in order to be part of the argument. Otherwise, the argument becomes flawed on some level. For example. I can say, "I believe women shouldn't have the right to vote because of these reasons: They have long hair, they have never been president, they are not physically strong like men." All 3 of these justifications are completely invalid and have very poor reasoning. But according to you, if you put all 3 of these justifications (parts) together, it somehow makes the entire argument as a whole, a valid or correct one? And if someone objects to it, you accuse them of appealing to the fallacy of composition. — chatterbears

The justification as a whole needs to be good enough. You can criticise the justification as a whole. That in itself is not a problem. But taking parts in isolation, which were not intended to be taken in isolation, is where you've gone wrong. If your reasoning for rejecting the justification as a whole is that each part when taken in isolation is insufficient, then your reasoning is erroneous. You should accept that and move on, in my opinion. I didn't want to drag this out, but you've made that hard to avoid.

This is just completely false. You can't ignore facts about reality to feed your inconsistent position. Animals can experience mental distress, similar to how humans can. You think an animal is in a better mental state confined to a cage, or walking around in an open field? — chatterbears

You've missed the point. What I said might be "completely false" if it contradicted what you say above about the ability of other animals to experience pain in a way which is to some degree similar to that ability of humans, but it does not. What I said is that other animals can't understand or relate to life, liberty, personal security, freedom, slavery, torture, and degrading treatment, to the unique degree that we do, so it wouldn't make sense to treat them as if they did. The latter is what you should have addressed.

I'm also going to disregard your loaded question which assumes something of my position which isn't implied, and is of no relevance to it.

Animals on typical organic and “free-range” farms often spend much of their time confined to crowded sheds or mud-filled pens, just as animals on conventional factory farms do. — chatterbears

Assuming that's correct, we could just talk of nontypical cases instead. The point was that it matters what exactly you're calling slavery. And to keep things relevant, you ought to consider whether anyone here is actually arguing against you in relation to such conditions.

Slaughter is a violation of the 'right to life'. — chatterbears

But the very point that we were debating was about the appropriateness of applying the right to life to other animals, such as chickens. Though at least that's keeping the topic relevant, unlike your mention of torture, which seems like more of an excuse to go off on a tangent.

Are you admitting defeat? Appealing to personal gratification is probably the worst justification you have used so far. — chatterbears

That reaction is a symptom of viewing what I said through moral blinkers. What I said was that I can live with the death of plants and other animals for the sake of my personal gratification. That's a descriptive statement about what I can live with, irrespective of right and wrong, yet you call it a justification.

I'm done responding to your statements, so don't quote me anymore. — chatterbears

No, I'll quote you if I so desire. No one is forcing you to respond. You're free to reply or not reply as you see fit, as am I, and I'm going to exercise that freedom by refraining from dignifying the rest of your comment with a reply.

But even with that, people throughout this thread have appealed to God or have stated things like “Animals feel pain in a different way than we do, so they should be treated differently.” — chatterbears

That's just laughable. You do realise that other people here can see what you're saying, right? No one has been appealing to God throughout the discussion. And my encounter with your second quote stems from a misrepresentation of something I said.

You: uber and nkbj disagree.
Me: no, we don't. *shows evidence*
You: I didn't say you disagreed!
Me: yes, you did *shows evidence*
You: uber and nkbj disagree.

Like I said, not worth my time. — NKBJ

Well it appears to be very much 'worth your time' as you keep responding. It's almost as if this one tiny thread is the only point you feel you can win on. I find it odd that in a debate about the ethics of eating meat, I present an argument that under some circumstances, eating meat might cause less harm than the equivalent vegetables, you say that you could counter my position but that you're to tired, and then proceed to post twice more, not refuting any of the actual points of the argument, but trying to prove a completely unrelated issue about whether I said two people disagree or not.

As far as I'm concerned, I said that two people presented between them a range of evidence which reaches different conclusions based on how harm is measured, but let's end this pointless distraction. Maybe I missed something somewhere and I did indeed say that you and Uber disagreed, Let's say that somewhere buried in my posts is the sentence "NKBJ and Uber vehemently disagree on [whatever it is you're claiming I said]". Fine, I'm happy with that, I think you probably do disagree. So what relevance has that got to the argument I presented?

• Eating wild, entirely grass-fed, or kitchen-scrap fed meat (which is the only meat I eat), is ethical because there exists intelligent, well-informed studies which conclude that such low impact forms of meat-eating probably cause less harm than farming the equivalent quantity of vegetables for some measures of 'harm'. Therefore a person could entirely reasonably conclude that such forms of meat-eating are ethically sound.

The studies I'm referring to are Davis's study, and the first study Uber quoted (both of which conclude that there exist some forms of meat-eating which cause less harm than the equivalent vegan diet).

This is a philosophy forum and we are discussing ethics. It is not an ecology forum for discussing agriculture. If you disagree with the two studies which concluded that some low-impact forms of meat eating are less harmful than veganism, that's fine, I'm sure you have very good reasons to disagree, as I've said a dozen times, the matter seems far from settled. But that has absolutely nothing to with the philosophical argument. The philosophical argument does not require a consensus on the amount of harm (that would be a scientific argument). The philosophical argument is about what it is ethical to do in the absence of such consensus.

If you're not actually interested in ethics, but rather concerned only to proselytize about your preferred interpretation of the evidence, then I suggest you stop posting in a philosophy forum, we have a rule here about proselytizing for a reason.

But to compare that to plants, is a bit silly and slightly absurd. — chatterbears

True.

I was just surfing the net and came across an interesting article on synthetic meat - first mentioned in a book ''Two Planets'' 1897.

What do you think?

Well it appears to be very much 'worth your time' as you keep responding. It's almost as if this one tiny thread is the only point you feel you can win on. — Pseudonym

I'll admit, your posts are like a trainwreck-it's hard to look away. :lol:

This thread has followed the regular pattern of a claim being made, and arguments for and against that claim being proposed, and in turn arguments for and against those arguments proposed. If that is your definition of proselytizing, then the whole forum is guilty of it.
But I think you're just annoyed that YOU can't win the argument, and are therefore accusing us of proselytizing... Again, very ironic.

Yet again, rather than addressing the actual philosophical proposition, you've focused on the one entirely unrelated part of my post you think you can score a point on. So we'll try the same tactic as before. My use of the term 'proselytising' was entirely rhetorical and if you're offended by its literal interpretation then I'm happy to retract it.

So now can you actually address the philosophical proposition, or do you want to pick me up on my grammar this time? Maybe I misused the word 'rhetorical'? Anything to avoid having to respond to the actual issue.

• Eating wild, entirely grass-fed, or kitchen-scrap fed meat (which is the only meat I eat), is ethical because there exists intelligent, well-informed studies which conclude that such low impact forms of meat-eating probably cause less harm than farming the equivalent quantity of vegetables for some measures of 'harm'. Therefore a person could entirely reasonably conclude that such forms of meat-eating are ethically sound.

You: You're proselytizing!
Me: No, because x, y, z.
You: Just because I said you were proselytizing doesn't mean I said you were proselytizing.

:rofl:

I really don't know what to say, you seem very passionate about the subject but more interested in finding fault with completely unrelated aspects of my posts than you are in actually discussing the issue. Anytime you'd like to address the proposition I've raised I'd be happy to respond.

Eating wild, entirely grass-fed, or kitchen-scrap fed meat (which is the only meat I eat), is ethical because there exists intelligent, well-informed studies which conclude that such low impact forms of meat-eating probably cause less harm than farming the equivalent quantity of vegetables for some measures of 'harm'. Therefore a person could entirely reasonably conclude that such forms of meat-eating are ethically sound. — Pseudonym

There seems to be a distinction to be made between 'more ethical than' and 'the most ethical'.

Vegans seek to achieve the most ethical consumption possible (based on their suppositions).

Others, and I include myself, are happy with consuming in a way that is more ethical than, say, factory-farming. The above example appears to fall into this category.

Both positions have ethical merit.

However, what bothers me about vegan 'superlativism' is its intolerance, as shown on this thread, for anyone who doesn't go to the same extremes. And 'extreme' is the correct term here. Indeed, someone from the vegan camp here made the claim that veganism is the logical terminus of ethical consumption, but it's not; you can always go to ever more extremes. Hence the logical terminus of ethical consumption as constructed by vegans is a reductio ad absurdum in which humans consume nothing for fear of acting unethically. This strongly suggests that whilst vegan practices themselves may not be wrong, the ethical reasoning behind them is massively flawed.

Adherents of the 'comparative' or moderate approach to ethical consumption tolerate veganism in a way not reciprocated by vegans. The moderate approach attacks the philosophical fundamentals of veganism whilst respecting vegans' choice to follow their diet of preference. On the other hand, vegans see their own position as the ne plus ultra on a cline of consumption and rip into everyone else with supercilious moral vigour not based on a firm philosophical footing. I mean, are fruitarians equally scornful of vegans? Are wild fruitarians scornful of fruitarians? Are autochthonous wild fruitarians scornful of wild fruitarians?...

Clearly, there is no cline of ethical consumption outside the vegan mind, and so the moderate approach is not a stop on the way to full-blown veganism as vegans here have claimed. Rather, it is a logical terminus in itself insofar as it is position of moderation that places an appropriate value on individual human interests and desires in addition to the interests of animals and the planet.

Could I do more? Yes, but at what point does it become life-denying self-sacrifice. I don't want to be an ascetic so, for me at least, it's pretty clear when to stop.

However, what bothers me about vegan 'superlativism' is its intolerance, as shown on this thread, for anyone who doesn't go to the same extremes. And 'extreme' is the correct term here. — Txastopher

Were the people who supported the prohibition on slavery "extreme'? Would you have labeled them as 'intolerant' to anyone who still continued to own people as property?

Kill a dog? = Psychopath
Kill a pig? = Breakfast
Kill neither? = EXTREMIST !

Could I do more? Yes, but at what point does it become life-denying self-sacrifice. I don't want to be an ascetic so, for me at least, it's pretty clear when to stop. — Txastopher

Sorry that your indulgence gets in the way of being a compassionate human being. Not only is this an ignorant position, because it is clear that there are an endless amount of Vegan foods that you can also indulge in (French fries, pasta, etc). But it also shows your lack of empathy and consistency, that your 'taste pleasure' is more important than the lives you're willing to kill for it.

What do you think? — TheMadFool

I don't have a problem with lab created meat. I'd probably even eat it :D

The justification as a whole needs to be good enough. You can criticise the justification as a whole. That in itself is not a problem. But taking parts in isolation, which were not intended to be taken in isolation, is where you've gone wrong. If your reasoning for rejecting the justification as a whole is that each part when taken in isolation is insufficient, then your reasoning is erroneous. — Sapientia

You just proved my point. You're saying that a person should not criticize each individual justification, and instead criticize all justifications as a whole. And explain to me how you would do this in these two scenarios:

"I believe women shouldn't have the right to vote because of these reasons: They aren't sufficiently man like, they have never been president, they are not physically strong like men."

"I believe eating animals is okay because of these reasons: They aren't sufficiently human like, they can't understand morality, they can't experience pain like we can."

I'd like you to criticize those two scenarios as a "whole", like you say you have to, and not criticize each reason itself [which apparently is erroneous].

If your reasoning for rejecting the justification as a whole is that each part when taken in isolation is insufficient, then your reasoning is erroneous. — Sapientia

What you're basically saying is, "Dont isolate parts of my argument, because then my whole argument will crumble" - Sorry. I'll try my best to not attack you with logic and proper reasoning :)

Kill a dog? = Psychopath — chatterbears

Where did this come from?

Kill neither? = EXTREMIST ! — chatterbears

No. Kill neither? = Cool, but, Kill neither because you hold that the philosophical bases of veganism to be true? = logical EXTREMIST!

Out of curiosity, which came first in your case; not consuming animal products or being a vegan?

completely unrelated aspects of my posts than you are in actually discussing the issue. — Pseudonym

I literally said I wasn't intetested in discussing the issue with you anymore. But it's due to the fundamental illogic of your argumentation, which is anything but unrelated to the discussion.

Were the people who supported the prohibition on slavery "extreme'? Would you have labeled them as 'intolerant' to anyone who still continued to own people as property? — chatterbears

This would depend on the strength of the analogy between humans and other animals, which, as has been shown multiple times on this thread, is far from adamantine. Indeed, it's hard enough to make an analogy between two humans.

Sorry that your indulgence gets in the way of being a compassionate human being. Not only is this an ignorant position, because it is clear that there are an endless amount of Vegan foods that you can also indulge in (French fries, pasta, etc). But it also shows your lack of empathy and consistency, that your 'taste pleasure' is more important than the lives you're willing to kill for it. — chatterbears

I'm a hedonist. My life project and that of the animals I eat, or potentially eat me, are in conflict, yes. Also, by having close friendships with a few people, I am denying the boon of my friendship to the world's friendless. In fact, now I come to think of it, almost everything I do has an unfortunate corollary. It's hard to know where to start given that my very existence is essentially a moral aberration.

Now that you've sorted out your relationship with other animals, what are going to put right next?