Is eating animals wrong?

[Graeme M]

The dairy industry turns mother cows into virtual slaves.

Interestingly, that's only a concern from our point of view. I mean, it is us who worry about the slavery equivalence; the cows aren't concerned by that. One of the reasons we object to human slavery is that humans are aware of their condition, but cows are not. All they are worried by is any pain and suffering that attends their use. From the point of view of the cow, it is possible to dairy farm in ways that minimise their harms. Some ethical dairies aim to do that and they probably succeed well enough. We don't really have the problem of veal in Australia, what we have here is the problem of bobby calves. These are very young (usually 5 day old males) that are sent to slaughter for low value products.

 

[GreenHugeBig]

Interestingly, that's only a concern from our point of view. I mean, it is us who worry about the slavery equivalence; the cows aren't concerned by that. One of the reasons we object to human slavery is that humans are aware of their condition, but cows are not. All they are worried by is any pain and suffering that attends their use. From the point of view of the cow, it is possible to dairy farm in ways that minimise their harms. Some ethical dairies aim to do that and they probably succeed well enough. We don't really have the problem of veal in Australia, what we have here is the problem of bobby calves. These are very young (usually 5 day old males) that are sent to slaughter for low value products.

That is a gross oversimplification, sorry. Someone not knowing it is abuse, doesn't make it not abusive. If someone is drugged, becomes unconscious and is subsequently violently raped, but upon waking up, cannot remember it, it doesn't mean the rape did not happen.

Cows are chattel slavery, just as any other domestic animal that cannot roam freely, procreate per their own terms or reasonably determine their own destiny. There's functionally no difference between the Australian eating his fascist-born ribeye steak, versus some European eating veal.

 

[Graeme M]

That is a gross oversimplification, sorry. Someone not knowing it is abuse, doesn't make it not abusive. If someone is drugged, becomes unconscious and is subsequently violently raped, but upon waking up, cannot remember it, it doesn't mean the rape did not happen. Cows are chattel slavery, just as any other domestic animal that cannot roam freely, procreate per their own terms or reasonably determine their own destiny. There's functionally no difference between the Australian eating his fascist-born ribeye steak, versus some European eating veal.

True, but only from our point of view. The cow has no idea she is being exploited, she doesn't evn care about that. The only thing she is worried about is her welfare. The fact she is owned, exploited, whatever, is a fact about things that only we can know. And that's why veganism is about us and not them.

 

[GreenHugeBig]

True, but only from our point of view. The cow has no idea she is being exploited, she doesn't evn care about that. The only thing she is worried about is her welfare. The fact she is owned, exploited, whatever, is a fact about things that only we can know. And that's why veganism is about us and not them.

It's incumbent upon us to be good stewards and not just assume that ignorance is bliss. The cow still gets mistreated. The cow still gets an early death. The cow still has no self-determination in life. Just because the cow has only ever known a life of slavery doesn't make it okay. See my rape example. It's like saying Bill Cosby never did anything wrong, because his victims all passed out and couldn't remember the nonconsensual sex.

 

[cromag]

take a look at Vegans For (all) Life for info, videos, etc about animal treatment and impressive people discussing animal rights

 

[Graeme M]

It's incumbent upon us to be good stewards and not just assume that ignorance is bliss. The cow still gets mistreated. The cow still gets an early death. The cow still has no self-determination in life. Just because the cow has only ever known a life of slavery doesn't make it okay. See my rape example. It's like saying Bill Cosby never did anything wrong, because his victims all passed out and couldn't remember the nonconsensual sex.

Sure, but the cow still doesn't care. From the cow's point of view, all that is important is welfarism. Veganism on the other hand counts to us, it comes at things from our point of view. In the case of the dairy cow, veganism wants to prevent the cow from existing in the first place. For dairy cows, veganism's first priority is to prevent them being used which means they should not be bred at all. Veganism's second priority is to prevent them being treated cruelly if they do exist, which is where the welfare comes in. And that's the only thing the cow cares about, once it exists.

 

[GreenHugeBig]

Sure, but the cow still doesn't care. From the cow's point of view, all that is important is welfarism.

This is what I said- you're rehashing the ignorance is bliss argument. It's literally the same as saying an unconscious victim can't properly feel emotional pain about being raped.

Veganism on the other hand counts to us, it comes at things from our point of view. In the case of the dairy cow, veganism wants to prevent the cow from existing in the first place. For dairy cows, veganism's first priority is to prevent them being used which means they should not be bred at all. Veganism's second priority is to prevent them being treated cruelly if they do exist, which is where the welfare comes in. And that's the only thing the cow cares about, once it exists.

Of course, they're all human choices. Cows- or their wild equivalents (e.g. buffalo, yaks, aurochs, etc.) naturally don't care much about humans, even as predators, unless they invade their personal space. It's humans who decided to harvest them for flesh, enslave them for milk production or processing into leather, glue, beauty products, etc. Likewise, it's humans- some of them anyway, who opted to care enough about their treatment or foreswore using them in these ways. Cows are peaceful, yet relatively unintelligent, so it's up to us to decide to mistreat them or not.

 

[Tom L.]

I can't honestly answer this: it makes no sense to me. Believe me, I have tried to discuss it with them and to influence them, but to no avail. On one Buddhist forum I hang out on, the veganism thread has been running for 6 years, with over 1100 posts. On another, the equivalent thread has been running 15 years, with nearly 7500 posts! They still don't believe me. No one is more vehemently anti-vegan/vegetarian than Buddhist anti-vegan/vegetarians.

The Buddha did not specifically prohibit eating meat (in either the Theravada or the Mahayana sects). Monks and nuns, who traditionally beg for their food, are specifically not permitted to refuse any food offered, except for meat from animals that were specifically slaughtered for them. Beggars can't be choosers. So if they are offered meat, they are required to eat it.

In the Mahayana tradition, we are supposed to be working to reduce the suffering of all sentient beings. To me, that is not compatible with eating them. Some teachers feel the same way. For example, the 17th Karmapa has declared that all practitioners in the Kagyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism should be vegetarian.

(bold emphsasis mine) About 20 or more years ago, there was a Tibetan Buddhist group in my area. As I understand it, Tibet is ruggedly inhospitable terrain, to put it mildly. It has mostly range land- and rather poor rangeland at that- but cultivatable ground is in short supply. Perhaps for this reason, Tibetan Buddhists are not vegetarian. But I saw no reason why this group (in Upstate New York, duh!!!!) could not manage it, so after attending two meetings (at most), I had no more dealings with them, other than sometimes chatting when we met on the street. I wouldn't say they were vehemently anti-veg, although I let them know I was vegetarian. Anyhow- see my comments below-

I was making a slightly different point. I wasn't talking about whether it is right or wrong to kill an animal but rather whether it is right or wrong to kill one for food. Generally speaking, we agree we should not kill people, but we can in certain contexts (for example, warfare). So the wrongness of killing people is also contingent - it just depends on the circumstances. I am saying using animals for food is similarly contingent, but with a big difference.

Because using other animals for food is natural and something we would always do when the circumstances are such that we must, we are always in a different relationship with other species than with other humans. By and large in today's world, no-one anywhere has to eat a person. But they may have to eat an animal. I have never seen anyone argue that given the choice, we should eat a human rather than another animal. Or even consider eating the person rather than the cow.

So, I am suggesting that killing and eating another animal is never wrong in and of itself. What is wrong is unjust treatment of other species whenever we can choose to do otherwise. This addresses all of the possible range of interactions we have with other species, including the wild ones. Not just eating them.

You and I differ here- and I speak as someone who sometimes gives in to the urge to consume non-vegan food. (With me, it involves buying non-vegan baked goods which are at their last date-of-sale and will otherwise be thrown out. I even wait for the end of the day to make sure I don't take something which someone else would have purchased. However, if they monitor these goods which are being discarded, I think word might get back to Production to cut back a bit on producing certain items which are not selling.) Most folks would say I'm over-thinking this to the point of being comically obsessive- but I'd rather over-think than not think about this at all. Anyway, I only do this when my cravings become annoying enough, and I'm not sure it's justifiable (as I explained just above).

This is what I said- you're rehashing the ignorance is bliss argument. It's literally the same as saying an unconscious victim can't properly feel emotional pain about being raped.

Of course, they're all human choices. Cows- or their wild equivalents (e.g. buffalo, yaks, aurochs, etc.) naturally don't care much about humans, even as predators, unless they invade their personal space. It's humans who decided to harvest them for flesh, enslave them for milk production or processing into leather, glue, beauty products, etc. Likewise, it's humans- some of them anyway, who opted to care enough about their treatment or foreswore using them in these ways. Cows are peaceful, yet relatively unintelligent, so it's up to us to decide to mistreat them or not.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, too. I know that there is no such thing as "humane" commercially-produced dairy: cows are slaughtered once they stop producing the marketable product (milk). In theory, someone could care about cows, with the cows and bulls/steers living out their full lifespan, and maybe helping (as draft animals) to cultivate land and produce grains, legumes, and vegetables. I know I could use an animal in this way, but still see them as more than something to be used. But would my view still be seen as justifying someone else raising an animal to eventually kill and eat (or at least not that different)? I'm still thinking it wouldn't, but I'm not so sure lately.

Anyway- to answer the question starting this thread: I would say "yes", because animals appear to enjoy their lives and it's wrong to deprive them of their being just to eat them. (I mentioned this in another thread someplace, I think).

ETA: My comments in the second section above make me think I have some sort of previously-undescribed eating disorder, albeit a mild one...

 

[LoreD]

Sure, but the cow still doesn't care. From the cow's point of view, all that is important is welfarism. Veganism on the other hand counts to us, it comes at things from our point of view. In the case of the dairy cow, veganism wants to prevent the cow from existing in the first place. For dairy cows, veganism's first priority is to prevent them being used which means they should not be bred at all. Veganism's second priority is to prevent them being treated cruelly if they do exist, which is where the welfare comes in. And that's the only thing the cow cares about, once it exists.

We don't look at things from the cow's point of view. He, or she, has no idea that the end of life is being slaughtered and eaten. The principle is that we know the suffering that is coming, and then do everything to prevent it happening. Which means not supporting the breeding of these animals as food.

Yes, I want to prevent food animals "from existing in the first place".

 

[Graeme M]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, too. I know that there is no such thing as "humane" commercially-produced dairy: cows are slaughtered once they stop producing the marketable product (milk). In theory, someone could care about cows, with the cows and bulls/steers living out their full lifespan, and maybe helping (as draft animals) to cultivate land and produce grains, legumes, and vegetables. I know I could use an animal in this way, but still see them as more than something to be used. But would my view still be seen as justifying someone else raising an animal to eventually kill and eat (or at least not that different)? I'm still thinking it wouldn't, but I'm not so sure lately.

This is an interesting point. I once promoted an ethical dairy on a vegan page because it seemed to me worth doing. Most people are not going to stop buying milk and meat, so surely it is consistent with veganism to promote ethical animal farming to such folk. I don't mean to say that we should tell people that's all they have to do, but rather that getting people to at least be more aware of welfare is a step in the right direction. But the rest of the folk on that page were pretty aggressively unhappy with this idea.

I'm not sure what to think. I mean, we could encourage people to ignore any such thing as an "ethical" dairy and go vegan, but most will not. I have only ever convinced one other person to choose veganism as far as I know - all my friends and family remain staunch meat and dairy eaters. But if I know of an ethical dairy where the animals are keep their whole lives and the calves are kept with the mums and the excess young sold to beef and not veal, is it consistent to suggest family and friends buy that milk if they must buy milk?

So I don't know, Tom L. The problem is the animals being created in the first place, but once they exist we surely have a duty to prevent them being treated cruelly. So if people will eat meat and dairy, it seems we should encourage them to support that kind of farm. Similarly, if people were to breed cattle to use for some other purpose and then later kill them for meat, that still seems to be exploiting them. And even if not killed for meat, they will still be killed in the end (no compassionate farmer would wait for the animals to die naturally). How would we determine the justness of such cases?

In personal communication with Martha Nussbaum recently about her book, "Justice for Animals", she advanced a similar argument. She suggests that raising sheep for wool is fine if we treat them well. She argues that looking after them and protecting them is reward for their use and as the shearing is necessary for their welfare we are in effect using a waste product. I pointed out that the sheep are always killed for meat at some point, though she didn't believe that to be true. I think it is. But the point remains - she does think that we can use animals, so long as we treat them well (prevent cruelty) and reward them for their use (prevent exploitation). Assuming we didn't kill them for meat, Martha believes it is acceptable to use sheep for wool. So that seems to be similar to your point, Tom L.

 

[Tom L.]

This is an interesting point. I once promoted an ethical dairy on a vegan page because it seemed to me worth doing. Most people are not going to stop buying milk and meat, so surely it is consistent with veganism to promote ethical animal farming to such folk. I don't mean to say that we should tell people that's all they have to do, but rather that getting people to at least be more aware of welfare is a step in the right direction. But the rest of the folk on that page were pretty aggressively unhappy with this idea.

I'm not sure what to think. I mean, we could encourage people to ignore any such thing as an "ethical" dairy and go vegan, but most will not. I have only ever convinced one other person to choose veganism as far as I know - all my friends and family remain staunch meat and dairy eaters. But if I know of an ethical dairy where the animals are keep their whole lives and the calves are kept with the mums and the excess young sold to beef and not veal, is it consistent to suggest family and friends buy that milk if they must buy milk?

(I only quoted part of your post). I have mixed feelings about this. I agree that it's VERY unlikely (at best!) that most people will go vegan (or even vegetarian) anytime soon- and if this is the case, then it would at least be preferable that they consume "ethically produced" dairy products. I just can't bring myself to have any confidence in such a system. If a dairy producer did not dispose of the non-productive animals in their operation, they would have to take care of their animals for the rest of their lives. To stay in business they would have to charge MUCH, MUCH more for their milk products than more conventional producers. If people aren't willing to give up dairy when they're confronted with the reality of what dairy production means for the animals, would they be willing to pay more for "ethical dairy"? And wouldn't it be tempting for a conventional dairy operation to falsely market its milk as "ethical milk" to collect on that profit?

Edited to add: I just re-read your post, and noticed the part about "excess young sold to beef and not veal". It would appear that this dairy would still be effectively wedded to the beef industry.

 

[Lou]

I'm a bit of two minds on Ethical Dairy.

I think Ethical Dairy is an oxymoron. Humans are taking milk away from a cow. How could that be ethical? Then if you consider all the other actions that go before hand it just provides even more evidence that ethical dairy is not feasible.

However like many people my age I was brought up on fantasies and historical fiction like Little House on Prairie. Ol' Bess was brought into the barn every night and milked morning and evening then sent out to pasture for the rest of the day. She nursed her babies and then when they were weaned she was lovingly milked by hand. I suppose eventually she was taken to the butcher. I don't think they put that in the books.

But anyway, I sort of know that it wasn't ethical dairy - but I hang on to the fantasy.

Also I'm reminded of subsistence farmers in poverty who are given a goat. The goat provides milk and meat to a family who are barely surviving. Utilitarian mathematics would deem that "good" as long as you don't put too much weight on what is good for the goats.

I'm also reminded of that segment in Michalel Pollan's Cooked, where he visited the Abbey of Regina Laudis, where nuns raise cows for cheese production. I think it was one nun to a cow. It all seemed very idyllic.

 

[Graeme M]

I guess we could agree on a continuum of ethics, from say veganism to complete abandonment of any ethics in using other animals. So in that context, an ethical dairy (or beef farm etc) aims to enable the animals to live relatively natural lives, to be well cared for and experience minimum distress when killed. So I think that if people are going to buy milk, then buying from such a system seems better than buying from a standard intensive system (where most cows in the US are raised). There are a couple of these farms here in Australia that I know of, and they seem very good IF someone is going to breed cows to produce milk. I suppose the worry is that encouraging people to support those farms is still encouraging people to support the use of animals for our ends. But we know that most people are not going to change away from meat and dairy any time soon.

 

[GreenHugeBig]

I really want a ribeye right now.

There's nothing wrong with admitting that. One day, you'll be pining for veggie broth couscous and tempeh stir fry.

 

[GreenHugeBig]

I likey cows on a bun with mayo, cheese and bacon.

Why? What did cows and pigs ever do to deserve you?

 

[GreenHugeBig]

They taste good.

And have lots of protein....which is something my physician says I need.

There are many sources of protein, quite a few of which are delightful, and do not require you raping the planet or murdering animals. I know that it's not you, personally, who physically wants to slash-and-burn the rainforests or kill the livestock placed on such land. But you must understand that this is what it takes to get you such food.

Have you tried tofu skins? Or filberts?

 

[VeganRachel]

The question is a moot point. I'm not indigenous, not going to be shipwrecked on a desert island, and not going to be snowbound on a glacier in the Artic.

We are not discussing whether the Inuits, Maasai, Maori, etc. should be eating animal products. We are discussing whether developed nations should be confining 35,000 pigs in a tiny area to be slaughtered for food. We have adequate, safe, nutritious, and tasty alternatives to animal products.

The Western Diet isn't just killing the animals; it is killing us and the planet.

Constantly presenting the straw man argument about being shipwrecked and having to go fishing is getting really tiring.

Thank you for sharing. If every human had to physically kill the animals they eat there would be 90% more vegans on this planet.
Humans want the separation of the animal lives from the "meat" on their plates. The industry makes it completely convenient and
imprsonal for customers to do so, and customers like that emotional distance. Its' very psychological, out of sight out of mind.
The animal is relegated to an object, products, its, food...not a living sentient being.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Thank you for sharing. If every human had to physically kill the animals they eat there would be 90% more vegans on this planet.
Humans want the separation of the animal lives from the "meat" on their plates. The industry makes it completely convenient and
imprsonal for customers to do so, and customers like that emotional distance. Its' very psychological, out of sight out of mind.
The animal is relegated to an object, products, its, food...not a living sentient being.

I think your estimate is probably rather low, but otherwise I totally agree. I’d go further and say we also want separation from the preparation of the meat too. As a race, we’ve become very squeamish and lazy, wanting others to do our dirty work for us.

That extends outside the realm of animal products, of course. Pre-prepared vegetables, canned anything, even ready meals to just throw in the oven or microwave. No wonder we’re over-consuming. Trouble is that the over-consumption is disproportionately skewed towards meat. If we had to kill and prepare all we eat, there would be a lot less obesity and a far greater proportion of plant-based food in even the diets of continuing omnivores.

 

[VeganRachel]

I think your estimate is probably rather low, but otherwise I totally agree. I’d go further and say we also want separation from the preparation of the meat too. As a race, we’ve become very squeamish and lazy, wanting others to do our dirty work for us.

That extends outside the realm of animal products, of course. Pre-prepared vegetables, canned anything, even ready meals to just throw in the oven or microwave. No wonder we’re over-consuming. Trouble is that the over-consumption is disproportionately skewed towards meat. If we had to kill and prepare all we eat, there would be a lot less obesity and a far greater proportion of plant-based food in even the diets of continuing omnivores.

This is an excellent video about many other victims of the animal agriculture industry few humans ever consider. cheers.