Is Eating Meat Philosophically Consistent with Non-violence?
(To be clear, I eat meat)
I wanted to share another great episode of Crash Course Philosophy. I've watched all of these, and this may be one of my favorites so far. I like it because it challenges my own thinking which is what good philosophy should do.
Are your internal perspectives consistent? How often do you challenge them? I'm challenged by this, for sure. The meat I enjoy (murder... tasty, tasty, murder) is mostly grass fed, community supported agriculture. I tell myself the story that they lived healthy, peaceful lives so it's okay how we use their flesh after they die (even if we happened to be the ones humanely killing them).
If I had more options (synthetic meat, perhaps?), I might change my perspective. At the same time, I recognize naturalistic realities of ecosystems and how sustainable farming works well with manure from livestock, etc, etc, but maybe that's just a justification I use to try and stay internally consistent? Should the level of enjoyment I get out of eating meat be weighed against the amount of enjoyment a less conscious being could have had if their life wasn't cut short? Or, even more interesting, would they have existed at all if we as humans didn't breed them for a purpose of providing us with food?
These are tough questions. The good questions often are.
What do you think?
If you like Edutainment like this, check out my post from 6 months ago summarizing my 11 favorite YouTube channels.
I'm surprised I hadn't seen the crash course philosophy video earlier; it nailed home the core philosophical arguments for veganism, although I'm not particularly a fan of the word 'speciesist', as people tend to conflate it with animals being equal to humans.
Humans are, undoubtedly, a higher evolved race of beings but that is not a justification to slaughter animals for sensory pleasure or convenience.
Anarchism and veganism share many similarities. I interpret 'no rulers' to mean just that, no rulers for humans or animals. Why should we only apply the non-aggression principle to humans when animals, like us, desire to live their lives in freedom.
We are all progressing at our own pace and I appreciate you for posting this, Luke, especially as a meat eater. I find many libertarians/anarchists are a little too left-brained in their approach to philosophy, which is why I find great value in Mark Passio's material, who introduced me to the documentary Earthlings (I don't know if you've seen it).
Thanks for commenting!
No, I haven't seen it but I will probably check it out. I saw Mark Passio at Anarchapulco and it was one of the most amazing talks there for me. There's a whole bunch of his content I want to consume.
That's a really interesting way to phrase it. Many anarchists, I think, are very, very principled individuals (and I'm so glad they are!) but it can mean they have trouble recognizing most of physical reality is on a spectrum. What one person considers a convenience, another person considers a basic necessity. Our expectations vary widely. The consciousness level of animals also varies along with their ability to feel pain and pleasure in a meaningful way. Good philosophy tries to tackle these problems head on while also dealing with the realities of the world we live in as it is today. For example, would it be better for cows to not exist or to exist and have a pleasurable life which ends in them becoming food? We've essentially manipulated their evolution to serve us to the point where I'm not sure they could effectively survive on their own. These are examples of the trolly problem type hard philosophy that I'd enjoy seeing more voluntaryists tackle. The world is a complex place and simple answers to simple problems often doesn't map well to it.
I look forward to reading more of your content on this subject. Thanks.
Earthlings (available on YouTube), for me, was a game changer. If you do watch it, I will pre-warn you that it's VERY DIFFICULT to watch all the way through due to its violent nature.
Passio is a powerhouse! I've consumed so much of his content over the years, and he has opened my eyes to so many things I was previously unaware of. His understanding of the psychology of order following is unparalleled, in my opinion.
To answer your question about rearing cows for food, if I was given the choice of incarnating into a physical body knowing that I was going to be enslaved by a higher race of beings, I would choose not to. Regardless of how well they may treat me in the days leading up to my death, I could never choose to be someone else's slave knowing that I was pre-destined for slaughter. I would rather not exist.
To gain an appreciation for just how much these creatures value freedom (as we all do), check this out :-)
Good video but the use of Cecil the lion kind of throws me off. The issue with killing Cecil was more around endangerment rather than preferable treatment for one animal over another. At least for me
Ah, but did it matter because it was "Cecil", a named, known lion within that community? Would it matter more or less if it was just some random lion? We tend to anthropomorphize things and it impacts our morality as well. We feel more concern over a mammal that is killed than, say, a bird because the mammal looks more like us and we're wired that way. The bird (such as a Raven) might be far more intelligent though. They even morn their dead. They are an incredible social species.
When I checked, it seems lions are vulnerable, but not fully endangered. Endangered species are killed every day and yet it doesn't create the moral Internet outrage that Cicil did. That's why I think it was valuable to include in the video. It's more about us than it is about the actual animals and that... is weird.
Changing your argument on me? ;)
So, there's many pieces that go into the "Cecil" situation. From the fact that first lions, and more, most large animals in Africa have been engrained in the US psyche as endangered. For that matter, most resources outside of the US have been preached as being sacred and should be protected no matter what. You could ask yourself why our media tells us the rainforest is in more need of protection than the Southeast rain forest of the US which we've decimated for our homes and societies. Maybe a way to keep competitors from developing their resources and thus, affecting our economic superiority?
But to stay on this topic, yes lions appear to be "vulnerable", I was wrong in thinking they were endangered, but the the question you posed when I referenced "endangered" was around the subjectiveness of our choosing. My counter was there are actual scientific metrics we can look at to determine when an animal actually need protection.
Though lions are not yet endangered, but vulnerable, does not mean their population is not declining. It is. And if it continues they will be below that self preservation threshold and thus, a killed lion is counter to what they need to self preservation.
However, yes, our reaction as a society is often times projected based on our biases typically formed from our media consumption. A better example would be sharks. Look at how we feel about sharks. They are essentially on the same level of predator as lions, yet we cry when a lion is killed and celebrate when a shark is killed.
So my original point, "Cecil" was a bad example as there's scientific evidence that lions need some type of protection and thus, are in need of the human compassion more than other animals.
Yeah, since we already covered some ground on Facebook, I thought I'd approach it from a different angle. :)
It's not just that, though. I've seen stuff that suggests empathy plays a big role and we are more connected to species that look like us and less so to those that don't (regardless of their level of consciousness). Like the raven's I mentioned above. Lions do need attention, but it was only "Cecil", named, loved, community lion which caused so much outrage. Endangered species die every day without that much attention.
I think you have to also look at the human's ability for compassion. We only have so much energy that can be spent per day on compassion for things outside of our tribe is costly.
I think a good question is instead of having humans sporadically exert this energy each time something breaks through their firewalls, rightly setup to prevent over taxation of their systems, how do create a constant dialogue using small fragments of that same energy?
If you look at the BP oil spill(s) response, I think you see the same level of empathy for all kinds of animals, that do not closely resemble human, as you did with Cecil. Pictures of birds covered in oil, frogs and other far from human species.
These moments of compassion are short lived though as life continues to pull people's attentions away from the tragedy at hand to the next tragedy in the list. You can apply this to political movements as well. Human's compact and short attention spans create bubbles of movements. It takes long visions and stamina to really make change.
Non-violence is a social contract made among consenting adults. Animals are unable to consent and therefore cannot reciprocate.
Wild animals that are not aggressive and not depending on humans should probably be given some extra respect. Animals whose very life depends upon our investment in their care have no more standing than the bacteria in our gut.
Of course, I totally empathize with animals and would find it hard to kill them myself.
I'm going to try to sow the seeds of reflection. Disclaimer, I currently work in a chicken slaughterhouse. I've worked in a pig farm for 2 weeks. I'm vegan.
My understanding is that the non-violence social contract we have among consenting adults and the fact that animal can't (which could be argued) reciprocate doesn't justify us causing unnecessary suffering. If it is then wouldn't it legitimize slaughtering human which are in a vegetative state? This isn't my point.
I don't see your justification. My guess is that you imply we shouldn't hurt animal but this isn't enough. It is my understanding that killing someone while they're asleep and claiming they didn't feel anything doesn't make it moral. Shouldn't the fact that if a living being value their life and enjoy waking up, be what should be considered here? The fact that we doesn't value the lives of the animal doesn't cut it either.
Morality dictate us that it isn't okay to kill someone even if we don't know the person we would kill or even if nobody knows that person.
When I worked at the pig farm I held the piglets while someone was cutting 2 little incisions and then proceeded to rip off their testis without the use of any anesthesia. (This is standard practice.) I would then release the piglets in the little enclosure where I took them. They would all pile up one over the other in the farthest corner of the enclosure just as they would do every time anyone would enter the room.
Looking back at this I consider this to be the action I'm most shameful of myself. It is on part with nothing else I did in my life. How animal are treated is another subject altogether but I felt inclined to share nonetheless.
I'll check out the video later. Thanks Luke.
Have you watched conversations with Koko? You may be making a selection bias justification for the capabilities and conscious awareness limitations (or lack thereof) of non-human animals. Dolphins, elephants, primates, etc... What if they did have the capacity for consent?
Even the concept of "consent" was created within our species understanding of social contract and social norms. Given the veil of ignorance philosophical test, if a powerful, vastly superior alien species were to come down and treat us as we treat cows (because their consciousness is so far beyond ours), wouldn't we want them to come down to our level, understand our consciousness, our pain, our desires, etc?
So a species ability to feel pain (i.e. their level of consciousness by which I mean arousal, awareness, memory, etc) has no bearing on the moral nature of our actions toward them? I find that to be a very difficult position to defend, ethically. Bacteria don't feel pain. Cows, dogs, pigs, etc surely do. That said, your point about the symbiotic relationship there is a good one.
Thanks for commenting, Dan. Greatly appreciated.
That's one way of putting it I guess. Personally, I would avoid using the term "social contract" in this case and refer to the the fact that morality only is possible to the single, thinking, autonomous individual.
To the extent that any other individual ("animal" or else) is able to reason, their individual moral rights should be fully respected.
(it get's trickier to explain the actual details once we get to things such as emotion and human handicaps, but this would apply even then)
Well said. And yes, it's tricky mainly because of our ignorance. We don't know what we don't know regarding consciousness, the brain, and how that impacts our understanding of morality. We can't even agree on which moral framework is the "best" one.
I think we can and that it's important to emphasize that we can, but I agree that it is very difficult to find any such agreement and that it would take a ton of work.
I try to make the same arguments. Hopefully we can at least make progress toward that goal. :)
There was an old Welsh farmer, a neighbour maybe 40 or 50 years ago, who cried when his lambs went off to market and would never eat their meat, and there are many others living and working with farm animals who treat them with deep reverence. (Yes, apart from the whole killing and eating bit.) I've worked with animals for more than a few years, but never once did I dream of lumping bacteria and domesticated mammals into one moral category.
I too found that rather strange. Seems @dantheman has moved on from this conversation, but I would appreciate clarification there. Seems like a pretty scary moral framework to me.
The most violent thing any person does, ever, is when a woman gives birth to a baby. Just the child's existence has more affect on this planet than anything we do with our lives.
The circle of life is what it is. It cannot be changed by simply changing our diet.
How about this thought? Vegans are held up to be the most kind, gentle diet. But, what they do is the eat eggs, the seeds of life, before they ever have a chance to live. And such, are denying them life.
If we all became vegetarian (besides it being impossible with our current technology level) then the cow would just disappear. Its no longer needed in the circle of life, and the species would become extinct.
It is far more appropriate to give thanks for all of your meal that the circle of life has brought you. Be thankful that it exists, so we all can exist. Even the nematodes that ate the fungus to feed the bacteria...
First vegans do not eat eggs, vegans eat no animal products at all. But still you cn hardly compare the act of eating meat to eating seeds or eggs. And it is totally possible for the world to not eat meat. You can literally grow enough food in your yard to feed a family. Sure youd have to learn alot about gardening and the like but it could be done. I feel like the only life I own is my own so I try to aviod killing other things.
90% of people don't have a yard to grow food in.
The industrial mono-crop industry doesn't produce enough vegetation to feed america.
Not all land is arable farm land. Much of america is grass land. Grass can feed cows, not humans.
With permaculture practices you can increase the yield of your soils.
However, it is in its infancy as a process.
However, however, permaculture is often highly dependent on animals. Things like chicken tractors to turn up the soil and add important nutrients.
Permaculture may provide a path to what you desire.
Trying to have as little harmful impact on the world from your actions is noble.
But, being afraid of death is a human thing. Avoiding killing other things often has worse side effects (especially if it is a natural cycle).
Antinatalist, eh? You'd like this video on Arthur Schopenhauer by School of Life.
Maybe. But couldn't one also argue we're beyond evolutionary pressures at this point and in many ways we can direct our own evolution? Could be a naturalistic fallacy to say "This is what's natural and what is natural is good and can not be changed."
En egg has no pain receptors. We'd have to get shared understanding of morality before this would make sense to me. My current moral framework involves not doing harm to others which implies they actually have the capacity to feel harm.
We also work to save many species, whether or not they provide advantages to the evolutionary stability of the ecosystem they exist in (again, seems we're beyond "natural" evolutionary forces).
But yes, I agree with much of what you said (although I'm not an antinatalist) and like the idea of always giving thanks.
No, I mean on a much deeper level.
Like Schroedinger's cat taken to the nth degree.
The effects on the planet are not computable by our current mathematics.
Imagine if Hitler wasn't born. (I know this isn't an accurate example, but it explains to most people) What the world might be like. The huge web of connection, of cause and effect spreading out from that single life.
Now, imagine that time literately changes when you add another piece to the puzzle. The entire framework of life on this planet is changed by one child being born. For each and every child. When each one is born, it multiplies the number of future possibilities. Nothing the person does during the rest of their life is as world changing as that.
I'm not sure I have a framework for evaluating that truth-claim. Many things people do in life (such as ending other lives) have more impact that one new human baby (IMO). But I get the spirit behind what you're saying.
A whole new way of defining Plato's cave.
My view on it is; if it has eyes on the side of its head; I'll eat, as that's the way evolution intended. I tend to steer clear of fellow predators :-)
Cg
That's probably the simplest, most logical explanation I've heard yet. I like it. :)
Then again, the veil of ignorance would fail me here. If I could have been on the prey side instead of the predator side, I'd probably want to change the rules a bit. I dunno. Maybe give the prey a really, really great life, even if it ends in our meal. Hmm... now I'm thinking about the simulation hypothesis... maybe we're the meal. :)
You would want to change the rules; however you'd be thankful for those side loaded, 340 degree seeing eyes. :-)
Cg
I went from ~8 years of vegan diet back to meat eating when the rabbits started eating the trees I had planted. Very nice with elderflower. I think exactly where one draws the line is a personal matter. Flanders and Swan had a sketch, The Reluctant Cannibal, with the clinching arguement being that saying you shouldn't eat people was just as absurd as saying you shouldn't kill people (What? No War! ), but my favourite observation was from Alan Bleasdale, who would eat chicken, because if he was hungry in a jungle he'd have a fair chance of taking on a chicken, but not a cow, and so he didn't eat beef.
Heh, that's an interesting way to think about it. But isn't that also kind of like the naturalistic fallacy? Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's good for the wellbeing of conscious creatures.
The video talked about not wanting to eat your family cat after it dies and immediately my mind went to "Oh my gosh, could someone make an argument for eating grandma after she dies?" Chilling thought, that.
If the fox eats the rabbit, that's natural, without any need to think about well-being (although that would be possible). If the man eats the rabbit, the qualitative difference as I see it, is not to do with natural, but with the fact that we think about it, or not-think about it. So the first step is to think clearly, and then ... well, I think it's a very personal decision.
Not surprisingly you've stimulated a lively discussion with this topic. As a fellow meat eater I appreciate you raising the issue, which I have thought about on a number of occasions.
I like to quote this guy when animal "rights" advocates or vegetarians claim my actions are repugnant to them:
"if you want to eat something has to die." - Ted Nugent
This is a basic fact of life, it's the food chain. However, lest you think I'm too arrogant in this attitude consider this hypothetical.
One day planet Earth is visited by extraterrestrials who think of us with as little regard as we think of mosquitos. Are they any less vile or immoral than we are? That seems like a rather hypocritical perspective as I see it, assuming you are willing to eat to stay alive, which is pretty obvious you are.
I must admit however my sympathy for all life has grown with my age, and I find myself sparing the life of insects and other lower species far more often than I once did. Whereas before I had zero regard for pests and other life if it was inconvenient, in my way or even if it just startled me. Now I'm less so, tho I still kill my share of them, but I am always aware that I'm ending that creature's existence.
Very well said. Yes, you've outlined the very thought experiment I've been going through as I play the veil of ignorance philosophical game. We could be on the wrong side of this, so we should probably think it through.
Interesting about growing older... I wonder if it's more of a recognition that death is coming, and we hope the world we live in cherishes our life so that we might live a bit longer and see our genes prosper. :)
Thanks again for the insightful comments.
Show me an animal that is capable of arguing rationally for himself why I shouldn't eat him, and doesn't rely on some human to make that argument for him, and I'll not eat him.
Even with humans, we don't generally ascribe rights to others that they are not willing to claim for themselves.
I appreciate your perspective (and it's basically the one I hold on to as well), but as the video explains, that's essentially the same as saying, "Well, yep, I'm okay with speciesism."
But we do. We ascribe rights to babies (even unborn ones!) who clearly can't claim them. If we just go with the, "Whoever is strong enough and smart enough to claim rights gets to have them" then we're kind of doing the "might makes right" thing regarding our moral framework. I view that as kind of primitive. As mentioned in the video, some animals have more cognitive abilities than humans (such as Koko compared to a one or two year old or someone with severe learning or mental disabilities). We don't go around eating those humans. :)
At the same time, what if a dolphin was like, "Anyone who can echo-locate with sonar can have rights. Screw everyone else." Obviously, I'm joking there, but it does raise the point about us judging other intelligent life on this planet based on the rules we ourselves created with considering the different types of intelligence which also exist here. "So long, and thanks for the all the fish!"
These are tough questions and interesting thought experiments. I think they are worth asking. If we ever run into a super intelligent species in the universe, we might want them to have a moral framework that cares for those silly humans who are too dumb and primitive to care for themselves.
Most definitely not! Speciesism, by definition, is a prejudice which is not backed by any "morally relevant differences." Yet I back my conclusion with the assertion that creatures which are incapable of moral reasoning have no moral standing or privilege. It is absurd to grant animals moral privileges while simultaneously holding them exempt from moral responsibility.
Why do you say babies can't claim rights? Give them some time, and they'll be able to claim them just fine. Rights do not change over time, thus if the adult has a right to life, so too must the baby.
Some animals have greater intelligence than some humans, but what of it? Intelligence is necessary, but not sufficient, to claim moral standing.
As I said before, if dolphins were capable of such a feat, I would happily contend that they have rights, because they can construct an argument that they do. The theoretical dolphin you cite, however, is guilty of speciesism as echo-location is not a morally relevant difference. ;)
Haha, okay, fair enough. It's possible your views would change if we were to encounter aliens who were far superior to our own understanding and the veil of ignorance lent us to consider how we'd want them to treat us. Thankfully there are no aliens around today. Also, apes like Koko, given some time, could also claim a level of preference and rights. Just as we socialize human babies to learn those skills, we can (to a much lesser degree, admittedly) socialize highly intelligent non-human animals.
Argumentation is a uniquely human construct. Pain and suffering is not. If our moral framework accounts for not doing harm to living things which can experience harm (we're not Janists after all), then I'll argue the level of conscious awareness should play into our moral framework and have some influence on our actions. It's not immoral to kill a mosquito, but as a society we recognize strangling a dog is evil and wrong.
That said, I essentially agree with your argument or, at the very least, it aligns with the story I tell myself in order to enjoy my ribeye steak. :)
Thanks for the healthy discussion.
It certainly is possible, but I note that my philosophical framework was designed specifically with such an eventuality in mind, and so far as I know, it is consistent even in the face of such a being.
Certainly an ape can be trained to string symbols together, which could be interpreted by a human as a claim of rights; however, those symbols would mean nothing to the ape except perhaps it would expect a reward for having performed as instructed. Human babies, however, left completely untaught or socialized, will still develop language (cases of this have been observed and documented). It is thus logical to conclude that they will also develop complex and abstract thought, creativity, etc. and would be capable of creating original arguments as to why they should not harm each other.
Agreed.
Ahh, but what is harm? Can you come up with a definition of harm, which is not based on a NTS fallacy, which does not invoke a human to assign the meaning of "harm" to an action? If I throw a brick through a window, have I caused harm? Only a human can decide that. If a doctor amputates your leg, has he harmed you? Only you can decide that. If a lion kills and eats a gazelle, has it caused harm? If I kill and eat a gazelle, have I caused harm? The concept of "harm" is uniquely human.
In nature, the lion eats the gazelle, and the world operates in beautiful, perpetual harmony. If the lion does not eat the gazelle, cycles begin to destabilize, patterns are broken, and ecosystems cease to exist. Yet in the absence of humans, who can say whether it's better for the lion to eat the gazelle, and perpetuate life, or to "respect the gazelle's rights" and end life? Neither the lion, nor the gazelle, nor Koko the ape are capable of expressing a preference.
But can you consistently argue why strangling the dog is wrong, but killing the mosquito is not? I posit that it's not necessarily wrong to strangle a dog. It's interesting to note that, done properly, strangulation is one of the fastest and most painless ways to kill a mammal. Being strangled isn't pleasant, but it's not what I would call painful either, and it's quite brief. There are far worse ways to go.
Well, at least you're being philosophically consistent. The challenge with that view relates to how we, as a tribal, social species, likes to build relationships based on virtue signals, trust, contractual agreements, shared value of wellbeing, etc.
To be okay with causing a conscious being pain (this is something which can be measured in the brain, along with the reactions of the living thing being hurt, so maybe "harm" wasn't the best word) creates an ethical challenge. We describe sociopaths as people who don't have a "normal" functioning of empathy, compassion, mirror neuron use, etc, etc. Sociopaths don't care about hurting animals (or humans, for that matter). They are not trusted by most in society because of our shared value in increasing wellbeing (i.e. not causing pain when it can be avoided).
At this point we're probably getting to the "is / ought" problem. From my perspective, you're arguing for an evolutionary stable society as being "ideal" for us (and life in general). I can't really disagree with that and I love this video on the topic:
At the same time, we can control our environment. If we want to decrease suffering for conscious beings, we can. Should we? Should we limit that to just humans? Is painfully killing a dog wrong only because another human might claim "ownership" of that dog?
I'd love to do a Google Hangout or something to dive into these conversations more. I so enjoy them. :)
Once the vegans arm the livestock, you might have a hard time putting them into your burger. I'm studying Abe Lincoln, once he declared the slaves to be free, they armed themselves and fought for the north. Tennessee is still flying rebel flags, in denial of losing the Civil War. I don't suggest war as solving debates, but the Civil War is hard to deny worth fighting for saving just one slave. ...Perhaps the industrial revolution would have reduced the need for unpaid labor. Perhaps slavery would have died out. It's convenient as we ponder -on this side- of history. ...Who will be the next Abe Lincoln? What selfless lawyer will speak for the uneducated, in these times? Some might suggest that our government and constitution might be too flawed to fix. Maybe time to start over with universal income for each being. I'm pretty sure monkeys are smart enough to code (says this web designer), earn their keep, pay their bills and stay out of jail. I think the Northwest (Cascadia) is ready for a new inclusive nation. How fun to imagine a modern, interspecies --->Bill of Rights!
Do you really think non-human animals could arm themselves effectively? I mean, Planet of the Apes was a fun movie and all... but I don't see that being very realistic. We have a huge evolutionary head start on them. Even if they did start cooking their food to pre-digest it, how many years would it take for them to evolve?
Letter to a Vegetarian Nation is a great book on this topic.
.
Sounds like you're quite firm on this, though I've heard many arguments to the contrary. Don't you consider some animals as more conscious than others? The ability to respond to pain doesn't encapsulate consciousness for me. I think neuron count matters in terms of our actual consciousness. Ravens, elephants, dolphins, primates, etc... I think it's been demonstrated some animals have higher levels of consciousness than others. We as humans engineered cows to be meat factors. They would not survive in the wild as they exist now (neither would many of the crops we've engineered to maximize food output). I view this issue as still open in that some animals are part of a sustainable ecosystem providing fertilizer and serving a roll to feed the community. Ideally, their lives should be pleasant, healthy, and pain free. I get that if you're view all animals as equally conscious, then this would be a horrifying stance to take.
If you read my content and honestly think I communicated "kill things for fun" then I'll no longer waste time responding as that's clearly a troll position to take. No where at all did I suggest anything like that. I don't even know what "repress our terror by investing into a symbolic order" means.
I think all animals have a value as living beings. If we expliot them to the maximum via killing, then this is horrifying regardless of how you try to equate it rationally - "they have less neurons so it's ok". Watch an animal like a pig get slaughtered, it's terrifying and painful to watch. And completely unnecessary since we created bread and stuff.
"Some animals are part of a sustainable ecosystem providing fertilizer and serving a roll to feed the community." We're obviously reading very different research about the huge environmental costs of meat production and how horribly wasteful it is. Also no community in the developed world needs meat to survive.
So you think saying -"The meat I enjoy (murder... tasty, tasty, murder)" isnt trolling vegetarians? It does imply an amusement in killing animals. So you did suggest it and I fully stand by my presentation of your views. You see killing animals as funny. You kill animals by proxy when you fuel the supply chain.
If you think I'm trolling by presenting you with your own views then you don't know what the meaning of the word is.
It's very simple. You don't get what game your playing. It's been going on for billions of years ever since one cell realised it could it could steal another cells energy it collected from the sun.
Your eating yourself, literally. One common ancestor - dna.
It's real hard trying to get the point across; we're not on the top looking down. We're not special or above anything because we're smart. Darwin knew this. People can't seem to get that. All living things have value in reality. Outside of our phoney dimarcations. Human Concioussness is the new God - it makes us feel special and it really shouldn't. We're not that smart, we're pissing upstream all the time.
Look up terror management theory about my last point.
I didn’t intent to troll vegetarians or vegans with that comment. It’s a joke I’ve heard most of my life, and I thought it was fairly common and uncontroversial in the way any off-color popular joke would be. I see how you or others could take it differently and for that I apologize if it implied something I never intended. I don’t think it implies enjoyment in killing, but enjoyment in eating because our species is omnivore and does enjoy meat (for the most part). My family uses locally sourced CSA for both our meat and vegetables. All the meat we eat has been grass fed, pastured, and lived a good life. You assumed something about my perspective there. We’ve visited and met with our farmers directly. I’ll be the first to agree with you mass meat production is an atrocity, and I don’t support it other than an occasional treat eating out as a family at a restaurant. I support the farm-to-table movement in restaurants as well and hope we see more of it.
If you want to blame me for billions of years, that’s your prerogative, but I think I’m doing my best here to honestly address a complicated issue.
I appreciate your views, but I don’t practice Jainism. I do see distinctions between species. I do think different animals have different levels of consciousness and that does inform my thinking on the topic becuase to me, capacity to feel joy, pain, and complex thoughts does directly relate to morality.
Thanks for bringing up TMT. I enjoyed skimming the Wikipedia page.