![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have archived this rather long talk page. HighInBC 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The following has been removed due to the apparent inadequacy of the citation.
"
"
The page that these claims cite gives its own reference to its sources, and therefore I fail to see what is necessarily lacking. Please elaborate on the issue.
Correlation does not imply causation. Studies without extensive causal data are pseudoscience, and thus do not belong on Wikipedia. 74.242.99.231 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is not written in the style of an encyclopedia reference. Rather it is written in the style one would expect from a college student's essay assignment for class. I recognize that a great deal of work has been done to search for various viewpoints on the subject and to be as unbiased as possible in making mention of those viewpoints, but that doesn't keep the work from being an essay. Perhaps some of this information could be merged with another topic such as Vegetarianism, and other parts may just not be useful for an encyclopedic reference at all. OfficeGirl 01:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree with your point of view. This is what I have done with this article: Before, After. The difference is extensive. I have of course done much since. I certainly agree any attempt to make this article more neutral.
I think a complete rewrite to a different style would be good to. I would do it, but I did the last re-write, and one of your objections is the style I used. That is okay, I am not the best writer in the world, and welcome improvements to my contributions. HighInBC 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The bulk of this article is a recounting of differing opinions in a debate-style format. (not encyclopedic) Have any of these theories changed the policies of any government entity, whether country-wide, state, province, local or municipal? Have any of these theories changed the behavior of any major, national or multi-national corporations? Have any of these theories inspired documented acts of vandalism, theft, interference with trade, boycotts or protests that were so dramatic that they forced businesses to stop functioning for a time? What about groups like PETA and the like and some of their controversial actions that have been covered in the news for many, many years-- some of those most certainly dealt with the issue of using animals for food, yes? I am not saying that this topic should be deleted, just that it really needs a LOT more work, and I think it would be more informative to people who never heard of the topic before if those who are knowledgable rolled up their sleeves and really worked on it! OfficeGirl 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It is clear to see that one or more persons have put in a great deal of time to really, really try to present opposing viewpoints as fairly as they could. I do not see any malicious intent here at all. But the vast majority of sources cited are pro-vegetarian, and the overall tone of the article still leans in the direction of attempting to persuade readers to the vegetarian viewpoint. More references from the non-vegetarian side would really help with that problem, as would cleaning up the language used to describe the vegetarian sources. OfficeGirl 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Ok. First of all it is completely wrong that the only reason to eat meat is for tradition and bias. And second of all, what does the earth being flat or round have to do with eating meat? Now, I want to start out by saying that the earth's population cannot be supported by just producing vegetables and other agrinomic plants. Why would I say this? Because farmers are already using all of the land that is tillable for grain and vegetble production. Unless you want to take out all of the rain forest, we cannot "expand the garden" and im sure you are against any genetic modified plants that would make it possible to produce more grain in a smaller amount of land. And no you cannot realisticly plant the side of a mountai. It just isn't possible. Now, unless you have any other options, we are left with eating meat. Farmers simply cannot produce for the world's population without producing meat. Trust me on this one, I am a college student who has done plenty of research in this area. Now i also want you to realize that most meat productions farms are not taking up space that could be used for growing crops. They are mostly found on rolling hills that are untillable and cannot be reasonably maintained because of erosion if we break the sod. Now, moving on. We need meat in our diets. Why do you think people in third world countries are starving? They can produce all the vegetables they want usually. What they don't have is meat. They starve from lack of protein. For example, if you want to consume the amount of protein that you would get from just 3 oz of red meat, you would have to consume three whole regular size cans of beans, or 3 pounds of sweet corn. Or try 8 pounds of potatos. We have to have protien in our diet to be healthy. And the best source is meat. Now for the ethics. I will start with poultry. I can tell you right now that egg laying hens are completely healthy and under no stress. How do i know this, because naturaly hens won't lay eggs if they are under any type of stress. So it is in the interest of the producer to make sure that his hens are happy so that they will lay eggs. simple as that. Second, there are laws that prevent the inhumane treatment of animals. Castration must be done with the least amount of stress possible. This means they do it at an early age when calves are going to experience less pain and less stress. And the slaughter of animals is humane as well. The way beef are killed ensures that the nervous system is completely destroyed so that they never feel pain through the whole process. if you have seen videos where they twich afterwards, that is muscle contractions that are just happening because the muscles don't know that they animal is dead, not because they are in agony. The blood still has oxygen going to the cells that is being transformed into energy and is being used up by cells. I hope that this entry told you a little about the animal industry and how meat is vital in this world to sustain our population also i hope you realize that animals are hardly ever treated poorly. True they aren't treated like you or any other human, but do they act like humans? NO! They don't need a whole house to live in. Animals are perfectly comfortable in smaller areas. You may not believe it, but steers sent to a confined feedlot operation are completely comfortable. There have been numerous test on their behaivior in such environments that prove that they are under minimal stress. Thank you for reading. I hope you learned something today and please tell your freinds that eating meat is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.243.219.60 ( talk) 06:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
All of the above illustrates my concerns with the article as it is currently laid out. The argument-rebuttal structure makes it look like a debate, which invites editors to take a position for or against when they make a contribution. I think it would look much more neutral if we just scrapped all the 'rebuttal' sections. Have an intro section presenting the fact that there are a number of ethical questions surrounding the consumption of meat, and that the most prominent one is whether its consumption is ethical at all. Then detail the arguments that people have made for one side. Then the other. Then describe a few of the other ethical questions: degrees of vegetarianism, and how people ethically justify their position on the line between carnivore and vegan; cultural and religious ethical views regarding what meat can and cannot be eaten and why, etc.
I'd dive right in and start by cutting the rebuttals myself, but that's major surgery on what is obviously a contentious article, so I'd like to know what others think first. Eron 23:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up up all the references so they all use the same footnote method. That is the first step, the next step I will do is go through them all and make sure the article text is supported by the citation. I hope somebody who knows the various ref templates can unify the format further, I am not so familiar with those. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Under the Health section it says that studies have found soy and/or soy products to be carcinogenic, but in the rebuttal part it does not address this. Could someone research this and explain? Lue3378 01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like some statistics on the percentage of individuals that worry/are concerned with the ethics of eating meat. I would also like a statistic individuals that are vegetarians because of the ethics of eating meat (as compared to those that do it for health reasons, etc.).
Also remember, soy beans have more toxins in than any other plant known... the energy (and hence carbon and pollutant) cost of processing it is immense. But sadly, if you want a balanced vegan diet for more than a tiny percentage of the population, soy is practically a necessity... Overall, grass reared meat is probably more environmentally friendly. Dlh-stablelights 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The meat industry is not stupid, they stand to lose billions if soy becomes too popular, so they hire scientists to research into soy to look for risks. These scientists know that if their research shows that soy is healthy they'll be out of the job. So, taking into account that even vitamins are unhealthy in large doses [3], they isolate certain chemicals from soy, feed them to rats and amazingly soy is suddenly deadly poisonous. Not even the FDA listens to these studies but for conservative talk show hosts this is the greatest thing in the world and so word starts to spread that soy isn't this miracle food but in fact has "more toxins in than any other plant known".
Soy isn't going to solve the worlds problems but moderate intake is obviously healthy (unless allergic). -- Calibas 01:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Calibas, have you heard of Monsanto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 ( talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I was reading this and a random thought popped into the ol' noggin. This debate always centers on the question of whether or not eating meat is ethical, yet it never touches on whether or not eating plants is. After all, plants are alive, and we do massacre billions, probably more - I don't have an exact figure on the death toll - every day. What makes the life of an animal that much more important than a plant? Forget speciesist(spelled?), its all kingdomist propaganda! jankyalias 1:30 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose a major revision to the entire article. I think most of us dont realize that nearly every single person on this planet has some taboos about eating meat. Sure, nearly everybody eats chicken, but what about things like horses and dogs? And if eating meat is ethical, what's wrong with cannibalism? This could be a really great article but it needs a lot of work. I think it would be much easier to read if the article was divided into broader subjects such as:
Religious aspects
Health pros and cons
Evolutionary studies
Economic aspects
Morality
Much of the article, pros and cons, needs to be removed. Unless somebody argues otherwise I'm going to get rid of the Dennis Leary quote. It's clever but I'm afraid Leary is a commedian and not an evolutionary scientist. I'm also going to remove:
I'm not really sure why this is in the scope section. And since animals without interests don't have moral rights (opinion) wouldn't that mean that animals with interests do have moral rights? This needs to be cleared up, I'm not sure what point it's trying to make. I'm going to wait until I get some feedback before I start doin any major editing. Namaste -- Calibas 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The section on the views of Christianity and Judaism regarding eating meat was deleted. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the entry that was deleted that's a matter of interpretation. The Bible verses are direct quotes, for example. I could believe that there is dispute over the matter - because people can dispute over just about anything - but I'm not personally aware of any. I'd like to revert the section, and invite the person (or whoever!) who deleted it to either add text explaining the dispute, or to discuss it here if they really feel it's wrong. Waitak 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added referenced data for global animal consumption. These figures are from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization; they are stated in metric tonnes rather than number of animals consumed, so I have removed the previous statement about 60 billion land animals per year eaten for food. (Which, if the UN FAO's figure of 220 million tonnes is correct, means each animal produced about seven pounds of meat. I'm thinking that 60 billion was a slight overstatement - even allowing for the fact that, globally, we eat many more chickens than cows.) I've also added an annual tonnage figure for fish and other aquatic life. I only skimmed through the first report I referenced, Livestock's long shadow, but I think it might be useful for putting some hard referenced facts to other claims in the article - particularly on the no-meat-thanks side of the ledger. - Eron Talk 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who put in the 60 billion figure. True, I don't have any source that says precisely that. However, if you put various figures together, you get to something like that. I don't think that just plain adding numbers counts as "original research"!
For starters, you have this page by CIWF that states that nearly 46 billion broiler chickens are reared annually in the world. That page doesn't itself give sources, but I think CIWF can count as trustworthy at least on such matters. Statistics for France for all animals can be found on the statistics site of the French agriculture ministry; counting all kinds of birds, small mammals (rabbits...), pigs, cows, etc. you get about 1.1 billion animals slaughtered every year in France (1/100th of world population). Again, that suggests something of the order of 60 billion worldwide. I had also found statistics for the US, but I dont remember the link (probably easy to find).
All in all, if no more precise sources are found, the wording of the sentence should probably be modified to recognize that the 60 billion figure is just an order of magnitude.
However, I feel that it is important to keep such an indication about numbers. I don't see what you mean when you say that the number is not significant. You can be opposed to the murder of humans, and believe that even one murder is too many, but still recognize that mass murder is not the same as one murder. That is what "scope" is about - giving an idea of the scope of the ethical problem. It is true that, depending on your ethical system, you may believe that killing some animals is ethically more serious than killing others; that killing a chimpanzee is worse than killing a mouse, for instance. So the ethical significance of numbers is not precise. It is more precise, however, than stating the number of pounds of meat, which, in itself, has no ethical significance whatever.
David Olivier 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Many of the rebuttals seem to attack straw men, and naturally, those are unsourced for the most part. I don't know if this is giving me a fair assessment of the ethics of vegetarianism, because the "Some would argue" and "Some have said" phrases seem kinda sketchy. Anyone agree with this? 146.151.23.123 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a huge problem with this section. First, it has nothing to do with the ethics of eating meat it simply states that our method of harvesting vegetables kills animals. According to Davis:
"Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn." [4]
That's IF we switch to ruminant-pasture. Nowhere is it said that everybody going vegan would kill less animals than our current model of food production. This is simply an arguement that a ruminant-pasture model would kill less animals than fully vegan one. Since we don't use a ruminant-pasture model, then wouldn't we kill less animals by going vegan? So there's an arguement for either going vegan or switching to a ruminant-pasture model. Still can't find anything about why it's right or wrong to eat meat. He does seem to imply that killing animals is wrong and we want to kill as few as possible. Secondly, his facts are questionable. Let's do the math: 1.8 billion animals killed from a fully vegan diet taking away the 300 million fewer killed annually according to his ruminant-pasture model leaves us with 1.5 billion animals, the total number that would be killed according to his model. 1.5 billion animals divided by 300 million people living in the US leaves us with 6 animals per person. So if we switch to ruminant-pasture farming and all eat 6 animals or less a year we'll kill less animals that if we all go vegan, according to his data. His agricultural model may make more sense than the one we have now but it doesn't mean it's right or wrong to eat meat. -- Calibas 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
they do it to us all the time, so it is only fair that we do it too. (they probably find us yummy too, what with recidivist man-eaters). 5000 years ago, it is likely as many animals ate people as people ate animals. -- ti 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahahaha. Is it me or is this section too funny. Large scale conversion to vegetarianism may put livestock "out of business" but wording it as "We eat them because we care for their survival" is just too funny. -- Dodo bird 10:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Errr... guys... Where all this arguments have come from? What is the reason for them to be here? Personally, I think I can come up for much better arguments but as they are only mine I don't think they should be on Wikipedia (or should they?). If that's the case, then I'll gladly add some. -- Taraborn 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Where is there proof of ANYTHING in here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Migospia ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Whoever wrote the first line in the Health section didn't check the reference very carefully. It simply states that rats given extra choline have healthier brains. Choline is found in beef liver and egg yolk, but also in large amounts in soy, iceberg lettuce, peanuts and cauliflower.
The second line, about omega-3 fatty acids, fails to mention why some fish have such high levels of omega-3. It's because they eat plants high in omega-3. There's plenty of plants that have high levels of omega-3 fatty acids that humans have easy access to.
The B-12 section should be kept but it should mention that while you cant get B-12 from plants, you cant get it from animals either. B-12 only comes from bacteria. The brand of Kombucha I drink has bacteria colonies inside and, according to the FDA, has plenty of B-12. Plus, you can get B-12 from cheese, you dont need to eat meat.
The next part: "The belief that it is not healthy to abstain from meat, and that abstaining from meat during pregnancy could harm a child, could outweigh ethical consideration for animals." Duh. This really doesn't say anything and I'm curious as to who is making this arguement. This belief does outweigh the ethical consideration for many people who eat meat, but is the belief true?
Lastly, the part about soy. Even if soy was deadly poisonous, why would this make eating meat ethical? Cant I be a vegetarian and not eat soy?
Seems to me that this section is either an arguement for eating meat or a well balanced vegetarian diet. -- Calibas 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've edited this paragraph:
Biological thermodynamics demonstrates that regardless of the style of cultivation, animals being consumers in the ecological pyramid, are bound to transfer only around 10% of the nutrition and energy they consume to the next trophic level. The rest 90% energy is released into the ecosystem increasing its entropy, which has to be pumped out of the ecosystem to maintain internal order, or a condition of low entropy. To maintain order in any self-organizing dynamical system, like the Earth's ecosystem, energy must be expended to pump out disorder. Large-scale meat-eating generates a very large entropy overhead, and at the same time leaves the ecosystem with very little energy for pumping it out.
There is an important argument against meat-eating here, but this paragraph misses the point. The discussion of entropy is a red herring - the 90% of energy that isn't transfered directly up the ecological pyramid will find its way to microbes and the soil via decomposition. The paragraph implies that animals create some kind of entropy pollution, which is simply untrue. There is also a contradiction in the paragraph. First, it states that huge amounts of energy are released into ecosystems by animals, then it says that ecosystems are lacking in energy to deal with this. Rubisco 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There isn't an article on Ethics of eating vegetables, since they are life forms just like animals. People who value life and eat vegetables are ignoring that plants have lives too and don't want to be eaten. Wouldn't it be nice to create a kind of tablet in labs that contain all the energy and necessary nutrients one needs? In the future, people can just eat tablets to sustain themselves.-- 141.213.198.142 03:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a very valid argument. Kindly stay with me for a moment...
"In botany, a fruit is the ripened ovary—together with seeds—of a flowering plant. In many species, the fruit incorporates the ripened ovary and surrounding tissues. Fruits are the means by which flowering plants disseminate seeds", so that means plants and other animals (including us, humans) have an agreement (sth they call like Symbiosis?) that they create ovaries with seeds. We "need" ovary's energy etc and then in this way that plant gets its seeds (say its children) to different locations and thus propagate its species (the ultimate purpose of every, every living being?)- and that may not be too UNethical
But, what is the agreement with animals?
But, how much we ponder over it, and try to find a consistent understanding, it may lead away from Non-Vegetarianism
User:Calibas (just above) is right when they feel, "I think the only real difference is that plants are far enough away from humans on the evolutionary tree that people don't relate to them in the same way."
Animals suffer. It must be really painful.
(personal opinion) > Some things cannot change. But I personally choose not to kill (indirectly) an animal, a live animal, just for my taste. I choose to kill an animal, if I am lost in the forest and MY OWN SURVIVAL is in question...hmmm
I was a Non-Veg, but after being forwarded a YouTube video of cow slaughter, and then observing some others (it is painful. believe me, you can see in their eyes) I cried and firmly made up my mind never to have a factory worker kill someone, for the taste of the spices, that have been cooked with flesh. Kindly keep the discussion going.< -- Nothing is free in this world 03:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Plants are able to heal, like humans and animals. they grow toward the sun, which is their life source. their roots stretch out to soak up water and nutrients. plants most certainly "want" to live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.62.234 ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If no one objects, I'm going to come through in a while and delete all of the rebuttals that lack citations, or a "see [x]". The Jade Knight 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine by me. The way I see it, we are all part of the food chain, just on different levels of it. Do you think a lion or a shark would think twice about eating a human, in case it hurt our feelings? No, of course it wouldn't, we are just lunch, the same as a tasty bit of dead pig.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.9.155 ( talk • contribs)
"According to the US National Institutes of Health, refraining from eating meat leads to increased risk of developing Vitamin B-12 deficiencies." Can someone provide a reference for this statement? Everywhere I look on the NIH website says you're only at risk if you dont eat meat, dairy or eggs. [12] [13] [14] Here's an article on an NIH site claiming you can get B12 from fermented soy. [15] -- Calibas 00:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
One problem with this article is that the very discussions presented have been based on a vague and arbitrary set of terms. For instance, it is all very well to base arguments on sentience and on the definition of sentience as per a single book, but that undermines the scope of the article from the start. There are no reasons cited as to why this would be a valid starting point, or why one should exclude arguements based on anything else. Also terms such as pleasure and pain are inherently vague and open to interpretation. When an arguement is made based on the ability of a being to experience either, it is vital that a clear definition of pleasure or pain be adopted. consider my addition of the reference to JC Bose; he interpretted the violent electrochemical changes in plant physiology caused by physical mutilation as an experience of pain. There can be no 'proof' or 'disproof' of this experience, as it is entirely a matter of definition. we must be careful tat ethical arguements donot become arguements of definition. People should not use this article as a place to haggle over words. So when making an arguement state clearly the definitions that go with a particular belief, and for god's sake don't generalize those definitions as being supreme or the Chosen One or anything like that. Leopart 10:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the first rebuttal because it made unfounded claims that were not reflected in the websites sited. It claimed that conclusive proof has been found that animals do feel pain. The articles sited explicitly stated that animal can experience nocioception but human pain also involved an emotional element which may or may not exist in animals. Rafiqr 03:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The largest problem with this article is the format. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a high school debate. We could combine it all together into a regular article but I doubt anybody wants to do all that work. Luckily, most of the page violates one of Wikipedia's basic policies, Wikipedia:No original research. Specifically, the part about no original analysis or synthesis of established facts. I'll go through every section and explain the problems.
I'm out of time but I'll be back to take an axe to the rest of the article. I'll add {{ Fact}} tags to the things I mentioned here and post the problems with the rest of the artictle. I'll wait about a week for discussion before I start deleting and shortly after that I'll get rid of the argument/rebuttal format. -- Calibas 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
For reference, the page before it lost 90% of its content is here. Some of the info was good and should be re-added, but ONLY if references are sourced. Good luck to whomever takes on that little project... — Eric Herboso 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not revert this page to it's pre-stub status, it was nominated for deletion and the decision was to stubify. The old page reads like a high school debate. It's got good info sporadicly but much of it is original research. If you want to take the well referenced parts and put them into this article feel free but do not bring back the point-counterpoint format. -- Calibas 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not letting this page go back to the screwed up mess it used to be! To the editors currently working on this page, provide references for the information you add or it's probably going to be deleted. I highly recommend reading WP:NOR and WP:RS, if you haven't read those you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. -- Calibas 23:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I came to this page because I was honestly curious about the ethical arguments for and against eating meat, but was surprised to see the article is barely more than a stub, most of which does not even discuss the ethics of the issue (the only relevant sentence is: "Reasons for objecting to the practice of killing may include a belief in animal rights, environmental ethics, or an aversion to inflicting pain or harm on other living creatures due to conscience."). I am sure a reliably sourced article can be written that would provide an in-depth analysis of why some people feel it is wrong to eat meat, and why others disagree. I hope someone will expand this article so it covers some of the actual ethical debates over this issue, rather than just saying 'some people do this. some people do that'. Terraxos 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this picture really necessary? This encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral but it seems that the picture is there soley to disgust the viewer and make him/her sympathize with the cause. I agree with the poster a few sections above. This article seems to be more pro-vegan than neutral. I propose that the image be deleted as it seems to favor non-meat eating and is quite biased.-- _ BaRiMzI _ 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Much of this article has nothing to do with ethics. In fact, ethics is a branch of philosophy and only two philosophers are even mentioned. I'm going to delete the following sections unless someone fixes this problem:
Animals have feelings and can suffer - why is it wrong to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
Damage to the environment - why is it wrong to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
Eating meat is a natural behaviour - why is it right to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
Animals have a lower level of consciousness - why is it right to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
Health - why is it right to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
Animal suffering is not required to getting meat - why is it right to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
It may seem that I'm picking on the pro-meat arguments but none of those are ethical arguments. I haven't been able to find any recent philosophers that argue it's ethical to eat meat. As far as I can tell, the ethics are based on religious doctrine and Descartes idea that animals lack consciousness. This page has some good info [17]. Wikipedia is not a message board for editors to voice their opinions, so there may be heavy deletions soon. -- Calibas 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Braithwaite, V. A.; P. Boulcott. Pain perception, aversion and fear in fish http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=565752
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=565752
Since my fish information in the article has been deleted without any reason, I leave these fish sensitive contents with you guys
Environmental ethics forms a major part of discourse on ethics of meat eating due to (a) ecological implications of meat eating and (b) relevance of environmental ethics concepts like anthropocentrism and speciesism in the context of meat-eating. This article currently talks about ethics mostly from an animal rights perspective, and is therefore very seriously incomplete. deeptrivia ( talk) 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the opening paragraph a bit, per WP:WEASEL. I'll keep an eye out for other sections. 74.242.103.167 13:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the article is focused on ethics regarding the consumption of meat, I don't feel it's safe to include an image of burgers on a grill. This more or less gives the article a pro-stance toward the issue. I'm not really sure how the image is necessary at all. 74.242.103.167 13:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that both images are "neutral"? One seeks to romanticize hunting, another to condemn modern slaughter techniques. All I am suggesting that each picture should be discussed for neutrality before insertion into his article.-- Hq3473 12:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be moved to something a bit broader, for example ethics of vegetarianism and veganism or something like that? Richard001 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"Vegetarians and vegans usually respond to the first argument that many natural behaviors of animals would be appalling if exhibited by humans, for example, rape, intra-species killing (what we call murder), and cannibalism."
I'd like to see a source or study that shows that animals rape and murder (for reasons other then defence or food).
The whole section which this quote comes from is really biased imho (apart from the last paragraph) this needs some serious fixing. Gelsamel 09:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Though humans don't generally want to agree with this rape is very common and in some cases part of our nature. Rape is horrible however. But when it comes to animals there's a big picture that people generally forget or don't realize. The majority of female animals do not feel sexual pleasure and rape in the animal kingdom really is different then what it is in humanity. Aml51z ( talk) 20:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that talking about humans as meat is a bit distracting in this article, but I also think that a mention, as in the most recent version, is appropriate, particularly since it is included in a list of animals that some people don't eat. Maybe it should have a wiki-link to canibalism? Bob98133 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Two simple scenarios that tend to be ignored:
- as stated a couple of sections earlier, most species used for the production of meat only exist because they were artificially selected for that purpose (same with milk and eggs -- dairy cows tend to produce more milk than they could naturally utilise and may even suffer if left un-milked). These species are mostly incapable of surviving in the wild because they've been domesticated for centuries or even millenia. Not only would the species probably die out, the individuals that are alive to die in the meat production wouldn't be alive without the meat industry needing them -- this poses an interesting (and I do mean, interesting) consideration about cost and benefit for the individual (what is the proportion of the suffering the individual experiences in its life in comparison to its gain of being alive in the first place -- this doubles as a consideration for abortion decisions).
- what if meat production wouldn't require the killing of actual animals? Imagine a cow that would quickly recover severed flesh, was born and raised in a laboratory (i.e. no impact on relatives) and is incapable of experiencing pain (genetic manipulation to deactivate the specific nervous subsystems). Or if that grosses you out too much, let's remove the sentience from the equation and imagine a lump of bovine flesh that grows (like a cancer), supplied by a laboratory rather than a sentient creature's body -- i.e. what about artificially produced flesh (much like artificially produced skin): how do we argue against that?
Lastly, and this is more of a transitional argument, we could even take into consideration the universal cost and benefit of meat production. Certainly humans benefit from eating meat (certain nutrients can not be found in the local fauna in the appropriate doses -- let's ignore artificial supplements here for sanity's sake) and animals suffer from being killed or having a close relative/mate/acquaintance killed. But what is the equilibrium if we take into consideration the overall benefits and costs (read: suffering)? I'm pretty sure we would arrive at some point above total zero -- no sane person would argue, taking our anatomy and genetic history into consideration, that we used to eat meat in the past and obviously gained enough benefits from it to justify developing specialised organs and teeth for the purpose (or less specialised herbivore gear), so the problem (in terms of health) is most likely not that we eat meat, but the amount of meat we eat (a hunter/gather community would most likely not rely on meat as the main resource, but it would do well utilising it whenever possible).
i.e. it's not that we weren't built to eat meat, we probably just eat way too much and too little vegetables. Just as we were never meant to eat candy all day, although we are fond of sugary sweetness for obvious health benefits (ripe fruit being sweet and all that).
But back to the main points -- what are the ethical arguments against meat if animal breeding/killing were taken out of the equation? And how much ethical wrong would the killing cause if the lifetime enjoyment of animals used in the meat production were improved and the killing were made less uncomfortable? -- 62.143.101.71 ( talk) 11:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Um... Why does this page exist? This page is patently not about "the ethics of eating meat", but is rather a page dedicated to giving adamant vegetarians and omnivores a place to square off. Is the debate between vegetarians and others so heated that eating meat must now be justified? Likewise, considering that humans have been eating meat throughout our existence and only in the past 6000 years developed an agricultural diet, shouldn't the title of the article be focused on the ethics or reasons why individuals engage in a vegetarian diet? This entire topic seems absolutely ridiculous. 164.67.226.47 12:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Greenwoodtree 00:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added a "consider for deletion" template so everyone can consider. Is this OK? -- Greenwoodtree 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur. In the past, I avocated the deletion of this article and the moving any specific topics to the appropriate wiki article. It's not an encyclopediatic article or topic. This is a philosophical point and not a factual topic by its own right. It just isn't a factual discussion, even with sources, because those sources were being used to make a point (original research). Fcsuper 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
obviously, this page hits home with the editor's. I'm not quite sure which way, but I'm grateful nonetheless for this page and the first page. There's enough to get you thinking, at least, and to show that the topic is not quite finished yet. I think the philosopher's thought are most relevant, and perhaps other theological perspectives, but this topic comes from them for them. -Caramelizeme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.38.47 ( talk) 02:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with that statement. Every person I know who eats meat, myself included, have an ethical objection to it. There's no excuse for eating meat, not even dietary. It's a culturally imposed thing from fifty years of meat industry brainwashing. I think it'd be safer to say that people with lower educations may not have ethical objections, yet people with average or above average educations and intelligence appreciate the situation more thoroughly and understand it's not a viable long term food source, especially with it's impact on global warming.
As a meat eater, I downright object to the concept that 'a great majority of people' have no ethical objections and think that's selling meat eaters short as ignorant, heartless idiots. We're just caught in a paradox. Jachin ( talk) 11:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Most meat-eaters don't have ethical concerns about eating meat. They may object to how animals are treated in slaughterhouses but that doesn't mean they have ethical concerns about actually eating meat, at least of animals of much lower consciousness than humans. Bobisbob ( talk) 20:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, however the opening does say that most meat-eaters have no ethical concerns about eating certain types of animal meat. Also, I am pretty sure people don't eat rat meat because of the rat's reputation as being a dirty animal not because they think it's immoral to eat rat meat. I don't know about horses and dogs though, I guess you have a point. Bobisbob ( talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed it for the time being until something better can be entered. It was just a ridiculous thing to say. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is very narrow and in sore need of work, so take a look at this: [18] - it's a peta website but it cites sources, which we can use. And there are a lot of them. I stumbled across it and it can provide much information about objections to eating meat that stem from enviornmental, economical, and moral issues regarding the mental and emotional abilities of animals (all documented, as we don't want pure peta rantings). It diserves some serious picking apart so we can actually have some well sourced information. Just one example: according to the website, "A major 2006 report by the United Nations ... said raising animals for food is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." The actual report, written by the Livestock, Enviornment, and Development Initiative is actually an effort "supported" by the United Nations, the European Union, and several other U.S and world government organizations, but the peta website quoted correctly: [19] (big file, high bandwidth necessary) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What has this section has to do with Ethics of eating meat? Taken at face value the argument is: "we should not eat meat because animals are treated badly" so doe sit follow that "if animals are treated well it is OK to eat meat?" The argument seems to be pointed at "ethic of treating animals" NOT at Ethics of eating meat. I suggest removing the whole section.-- Hq3473 ( talk) 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly see why vegetarians would be opposed to raising animals on farms just for the purpose of being slaughtered and shipped to stores to be bought and eaten. But I wonder what they would think upon meeting somebody who does not depend on the market system for food, but rather attains all of his food by the power of his own abilities; A person who must hunt and trap animals for survival but has great respect for the animals he kills. This person uses every part of the animal, the meat, skin, bones, not a thing is wasted. It would be impossible for him to be a vegetarian, as no one ecosystem on earth has enough variety of vegetation to support a healthy human being (a male anyway.) would a vegetarian or vegan view this as wrong? on the other hand, these vegetarians and vegans depend on technology for their survival. If they didn't have the boats and trucks that bring over exotic fruits and vegetables, they would die. If they didn't have the years of scientifc research into the nutritional value of the world's vegetation, they would not be able to maintain the carefully monitered diet that keeps them alive. I get very tired of vegetarians talking about how "natural" their diet is. I think they should go into the woods and see how long they can live off of the plants they can find. Vegetarians are not seperate from the rest of the masses of humanity that are destroying the earth with their dependance on technology. It is ridiculous to think that something the entirety of humanity has been doing since the beginning of time is unnatural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.62.234 ( talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"It is ridiculous to think that something the entirety of humanity has been doing since the beginning of time is unnatural." It certianly would be, but this is supposed to be about the ethics of meat not if it is natural or not. they are not the same thing! [ [20]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.168.114 ( talk) 21:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The point about hunting and eating all of the parts is a good point. However, there is a reference to Peter Singer who says that if you can avoid killing then you should. I believe the ethics of eating meat is a decent article as the introduction states that some people do not eat meat because of moral reason, health, or the conditions in which the animal had to live through. This means some current vegetatarians wouldnt eat meat in the forest because they are against killing, and some would because there isn't mass cruelty and slaughter. This distinction is made in the article and thus passes for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.141.9 ( talk) 18:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Although I am speaking as a vegetarian here, I think the images of raw meat, etc. in the article are at best distracting. I don't see what including pictures of dead animals has to contribute to an article about an ethical debate that is inclined to draw readers who are *against* eating meat and who consequently wouldn't like to see those images. If I come to read an article about an ethical issue, I don't expect to have to try to exclude the images from my view because I find them disgusting. This makes the article far less readable, while contributing absolutely nothing to its value or aesthetics. Before other people jump at me for simply pushing my own viewpoint about the images being unappealing, I would like to say that the images are detrimental to the article not because I personally dislike them, but because they're not neutral. If you include an image that could potentially offend or put off one party that participates in the argument, you're to some extent limiting the ability of the article to be edited to correct for mischaracterization of pro-veg views, which in my opinion constitutes bias. In short: putting images that are redundant into an article not dealing with a specific viewpoint (opposed to e.g. graphs of resource consumption of different agricultural techniques) that succeed in putting off one party to the argument are inherently biased and should be removed. - Space Dracula ( talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think people are missing something obvious here. The article is not meat. So picture of meat is kind of pointless. A picture of someone eating meat is a different story, and may in fact be entirely relevant. It may be very appropriate, in fact, to have a picture, say, of one person eating meat (wearing an NRA hat and holding a rifle too maybe) and another person looking angry and disgusted and pointing a finger (holding a sign maybe). Thought bubbles may add to the informative nature of the picture also. -- C S ( talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Puellanivis's earlier comment "The animal died so that I could have meat": I only note in passing that this statement has exactly the same form as the one that Noam Chomsky spotted on a statue: "Here lies an Indian woman, a Wampanoag, whose family and tribe gave of themselves and their land that this great nation might be born and grow." (Quoted in Manufacturing Consent.) The respective agents of both the animal's death and the Wampanoag woman's death go unmentioned, as does the extent to which each of them gave their consent. (Full disclosure: I'm a meat-eater who knows of no ethical justification for my meat-eating.) Lexo ( talk) 12:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this article, since it's an Encyclopedia article, is an informative one, not a persuasive one (and that's coming from a vegetarian). Secondly, I TOTALLY agree with you. Like, 100%. We don't need meat in an article about arguements for meat. Quintus314 ( talk) 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that this page is not written from a standpoint of neutrality. I know that most of the editors on here are likely vegan/vegetarian, so it is understandable that the neutrality has shifted, but I would urge additional editors to step up and make some changes to bring more balance to this article. From the get-go this article sets about proving that it is unethical to eat meat, and there needs to be ammendments, not necessarily pro-carnivore views. 205.200.1.246 ( talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this article's neutrality is not so much the content, but the slanted phraseology. For example, in the section "The Ethics of Killing for Food," the phrase "some opponents of ethical vegetarianism..." is obviously slanted in such a way as to portray people who believe that eating meat is acceptable as "opponents," and more specifically opponents of something that is "ethical." It would be more neutral to say something like "some proponents of eating meat..." In fact, even the title of the section "The Ethics of Killing for Food" exhibits a subtle bias with its stark reference to "killing." The title could simply be "The Ethics of Eating Meat," although I'm afraid that a title like that might sanitize meat-eating too much and thus slant in the opposite direction. In any event, it's quite possible that the authors of this article, most of whom are probably ethical vegetarians or vegans, did not intend to slant the wording like this but simply wrote the article, intending to for it to be neutral, and their biases came out subconsciously. In any event, this article should be cleaned up to ensure neutral phrasing of ideas. Incidentally, I sympathize with the ethical arguments made by vegetarians and vegans regarding the treatment of animals, but I think that these points should be brought out in the article in a neutral, unbiased fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree this article is NOT neutral and is promoting veganism. Here are the following problems I have detailed by each section:
Ethics of killing for food: Has nothing on killing or processing of animal products for agricultural purpose (ie. deforestation and habitat destruction for monoculture in crops such as soy and banana, killing of agricultural pest (ie. birds, slugs, rodents), and production of fertilizers (ie. fish emulsion, bone meal, blood-meal)
Treatment of animals: Mentions nothing on free range farming nor integrated agroforestry farming methods
Animal consciousness under Pain: It mentions nothing about eating genetically engineered meats nor does it mentioned eating animals without nerves such as ( bivalves (excluding oysters which should be added here), sea urchins, Jellyfish, or arthropods.
Ethical vegetarianism: mentions nothing about honey nor the captive cultivation of bees and worms for their bi-products.
Environmental argument: Only mentions monoculture and its statistics, nothing about site specific production of food in unfarmable land where limited crops can be grown which can be grazed by cattle or areas that are less accessible by transportation such as artic tundra areas where meat is primarily consumed (ie. Tibet, some parts of Alaska). Also nothing about hunting for food (and controlling invasive edible species) efficiencies of alternative practices (biogas digesters for power using animal waste,integrated hydroponic systems, Florida stone crab claw harvesting), and plowing fields using animals in 3rd world countries.
Also nothing addressing economic cost/benefits of production of meat substitutes (ie soy based meats, vegetarian bacon, vitamins) and a section needs to be made on Health Responsibility/Irresponsibility that addresses Vitamin deficiency (B12, Iron, D), Cases of baby deaths from careless malnutrition, and cat blindness and deaths from being fed non AAFCO certified vegan cat food. -- Cs california ( talk) 11:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Such a weak point shouldn't be nearly so long as it is. Plus the enormous changes to food production and diet that would be required should be stressed first. Also, the 1.2 billion animals killed is utter fantasy as every acre of available farmland wouldn't be needed if people switched to a vegetarian diet. In fact, I think we'd be using less farmland as an enormous amount of the food grown on farms goes to feeding cattle.
And if that's not enough, this is an article on ethics and I don't see any of that in Davis' argument. -- Calibas ( talk) 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I had a go at reducing this to something more appropriate. I don't see that including Tom Regan's arguments and whether or not they agree with Davis is necessary. I have stated Davis position and indicated that it is not universally accepted. Going to refs explains the points that I removed. I hope present version solves WP:UNDUE situation. Please discuss if you think more of this material should be included. Thanks. Bob98133 ( talk) 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the decision to reduce the material on Davis and the debate around his work. If you read Davis's paper and the rebuttals this page linked to, you will see that the reasons cited above to cut the Davis material are not on target.
For example, it is not true that his argument depends on massive changes to the agricultural industry to make its point: the references to national statistics were simply a way of illustrating his point. Someone who agreed with his argument could act on that belief now by eating some grass feed beef and no other meat.
It is also the case that he is clearly making an explicitly ethical argument, just as advocates of not eating meat do. Davis's argument is based on the principle of least harm, which he borrow from moral philosopher Tom Regan, and which is a moral principle.
An entry mentioning Davis also does not violate Wikipedia's policy regarding original research (OR). The policy applies to what Wikipedians write ourselves. It is not a policy against citing previously published research.
I sense that some of the opposition to a longer section on Davis is because people disagree with his argument. As it happens I am a vegetarian and I share the view that his argument is mistaken. But it deserves a longer section, for two reasons.
One is influence. Davis has been cited in cover stories in Time, The New York TImes Magazine, a book by influential author Michael Pollan, and many, many discussions on the Internet. His argument has also generated rebuttals in academic journals by two critics who thought it was important enough to respond to. An argument that meets those conditions deserves more than passing mention.
The second reason it warrants inclusion is that the section was not about Davis, but the *debate* around Davis. One of the rebuttals linked to (Lamey) basically turned his argument around, and said that if Davis's moral assumptions are correct, he has actually strengthened the argument for vegetarianism. So even if one disagrees with Davis's original conclusions, there is still a case to be made for the longer section, as Davis has set of a larger debate that is independent of his recommendations re diet.
For all of these reasons, I am going to restore the longer section on the debate around Davis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porphyry Jones ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Bob. As I read the previous discussion, you and another editor thought it was too long and there was a third, Steven W., who thought it should be longer. I am with Steven so it is two votes on either side, so I did not think I was doing anything untoward. Based on the above, there seems just as much support for my position as for yours.
Regarding your comments,if by OR you are referring to Wikipedia's policy against original research, the longer version does not violate this policy, as you will see if you review the policy in question. Again, it is a policy against you or I introducing material not already published elsewhere.
You also mention the undue emphasis policy. This is why I mentioned all the places Davis has been cited. There is a live debate going on about his work, and this page could be helpful to people who have been following it. But right now the entry is so short, it is hard to even get a sense of who has said what on either side.
You mention that Davis's argument is flawed, and I agree. But note that the criteria for an argument being mentioned on Wikipedia is not based on its truth. Also, the entry as I had it did not endorse Davis argument. It said he had put his argument forward and mentioned the rebuttals to it, pointing interested readers to further sources. That would be of service to people interested in this topic. Right now this section is too brief to be of much use to anyone. Even if you felt the previous version was too long, right now it is so short to be informative. Porphyry Jones ( talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. If you read the Lamey paper linked to you might get a sense of why someone sympathetic to vegetarianism would want this material to be included. Davis has misunderstood the ramifications of his own argument. If people come here and read the long version, or at least one longer than what is there now, they will be more likely to see that than if this material is missing. Porphyry Jones ( talk) 15:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Porphyry Jones, if you've read and understand Davis' work feel free to rewrite the section. And please concentrate on the ethical argument that Davis is making, the previous version is rather lacking there.
You also said that Davis' argument doesn't depend upon massive changes to the agricultural industry. If that's the case, then the sources we have here completely misrepresent Davis. Here's Time magazine: "Applying (and upending) Regan's least-harm theory, Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace poultry and pork production with beef, lamb and dairy products." That's an enormous change to the agricultural industry. You say you've read Davis' work, is Time magazine wrong here?
Then there's the very crux of Davis' argument, the number of animals actually killed. This number is nothing more than a guess. The whole thing isn't based upon any solid evidence. I think the only reason Davis received so much focus in this article (and in the media), isn't because he presents a good argument, it's because it's one of the only arguments on why eating meat is ethical. -- Calibas ( talk) 15:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I stumbled across this page last night and saw the Davis section. To me, I think the concept Davis introduced is one worthy of discussion if in fact there is evidence that a path other than vegetarianism/veganism would cause less harm & death and would continue to do so when implemented on a large-scale. However, I find Davis' paper offers no such evidence and is in fact severely flawed. Thus, when seeing what struck me as two sentences that seemed to offer a very weak rebuttal, I attempted to edit this section.
Granted, I've never edited a wiki page before and much to my surprise, though I thought I was only updating the section, I ended up updating the whole page. Fortunately, there was a big, red undo button for me to push!
After reverting the page back to its original state, I found this 'talk' about the Davis section and thought I'd add my two cents. Personally, I think what is currently on the page looks like Davis has a great argument and the counterpoints are weak enough that they aren't worth getting into. I understand the concept of not wanting to ramble on about Davis' paper since it is so very flawed. At the same time, for better or worse, his paper is brought up again and again. Thus I think, like it or not, it is a subject that arises on 'meat ethics' and needs to have something stronger than three sentences.
I didn't create this page, so I know my vote doesn't really count. But, if it did, I would vote to have more in that section. Though one could (I know I could) create a rather long list of issues with this paper - each of which alone would negate the conclusion, I think that Mathney's points are succinct enough that no one needs look any further. (One could include Lamey's points as done here(as well as other points made), but again, I think one needs to look no further than the math.)
That said, 'my'* version is below. If you'd like to use it (and then delete it from the talk section), feel free. Otherwise, if you'd simply like to delete it from the talk section, that's fine as well. *I have not personally verified the PhD candidate status of Mathney. This information came from here as did a portion of the text used Lolaabc ( talk) 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed the enormous quote from George Will for a few different reasons. It never addressed the ethics of eating meat itself, only the ethical treatment of animals. It was far too long without really getting to any point. It was attributed to George Will, who's mostly just summing up a book by Matthew Scully. Here's an article Scully wrote on the subject [22] if someone wants to add that to the article (paraphrasing usually works better than long quotes). -- Calibas ( talk) 23:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there not some evidence to suggest that the promotion of a vegan lifestyle as more moral (eh?) more worthy (come again?) automaticly place it in the realm of the nursery of the religious?
Ethics if you could find a substance / wavefield /colour/ something you could measure with an Ethic-o-gram the one thing you would say about an Ethical Effect was it tends to counter that which is innate; in short anything ethical is sexual selection, which last time I looked was the consensus with what a religion is for
81.109.247.189 (
talk)
00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Constantly deleting my point about plant pain is not benefiting this article. This topic has not be officially addressed in academic literature so obviously theres no source I can provide but as a 4th year medical student I think the scientific reasoning in my argument against a so called 'plant pain' hypothesis is solid and should be in the article. Certainly if you are going to delete that paragraph then delete the entire plant pain section because its completely a ludicrous argument. Destruction of plant cells causes pain because cells are living? This is a joke of biological pseudoscience likely written by someone with minimal education and understanding of the Biological and Medical sciences.
Ok, where is the reference for the 'counter argument'? I see no reference. It is basically a contributor's opinion to the same degree my entry was. Removing the entire argument is the only fair thing if this is your stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodtactical ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Vegetarian/Vegan ethics are coherent enough if compared with other mainstream moral issues, probably even more logic than other more controversial. A provocative example: it makes more sense not to inflict pain to a cow than to refrain from mating with a fully developed 13-15 year old girl, and act which in most ancient society would be considered normal. Having said that I think the advocates of Vegetarian/Vegan lyfestyle should interrogate themsels on the consequences of their choices. I am not aware of any large mammal that is not a lifestock and is not in danger of extinction in Europe. Bears have for long been on the verge of disappearing from the alpes, Game in general is kept alive in reserves etcc. What should be of the millions of cows which we shall not eat? Think to what happened to horses when they ceased to be a mean of transport; I did took the effort to look for a reference Population of Horses 1880-2000 and take a 50%+ reduction as a conservative figure and consider that although not for food or transport horses still are a versatile source of "animal force" (in all its forms); a similar case could not be immagined for cows. Honestly I do not see any grassland in Europe suitable for sustaing any population of wild cattle and it can easily be seen that what applies to Europe applies to any named developed area in the world. So I think this article should also cover the moral issue of the dependance of livestock animals on meat eaters, not to consider the consequence of the implementation of moral ethics on the production of an immense variety of byproducts of animal farming (leather just to name one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispinoecrispiano ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
A different take on the implications for animals of not eating them is the resultant impacts on their welfare. Not sure how to cite this - but in personal communications both PETA and Animal Sanctuary AR organisations have informed me that - should be be wildly successful in ending animal agriculture - it would then be acceptable for the non-domesticate ruminants (wild graziers) that replace grazing eco-system niches - it would be acceptable for them to die of predation, starvation, dehydration, and/or disease....this presents a logical inconsistency - or at least logical nuance challenging the veg*n world view.....but where I only have personal communications regarding this - not sure how to include it however critical it may be to the topic. Ideas? MythicMeats ( talk) 08:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Mycobovine
Just out of curiosity, when people say that meat eating is wrong, immoral, unneccesary etc, are they simply talking about humans? Are there any reasons why other animals in the animal kingdom should not eat meat? Portillo ( talk) 02:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I want animal activists to know that the lack of neutrality in this article does not allow me to seriously question my meat eating practices. Those who vandalize or spin this article, while their intentions may be honourable are greatly hurting their cause. If someone comes to this article, they are either already against eating meat or they are willing and open to question their practices. Personally, I hesitated before clicking on this link (it was a google search result that i wasn't looking for). I hesitated because I feared that reading something which would cause me to question my practices and maybe make me change my lifestyle would be hard for me to do (I am going through tough times with a lot of personal pressures). I clicked the link though because willful ignorance or shunning objective facts is not an excuse. I will revisit this wikipedia page in the future to see if it is in fact more neutral.
Someone could say that I could browse through all sorts of academic and medical journals and that the information is out there. I have tried doing this with other topics and it is fruitless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.88.10 ( talk) 17:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for answering me (I was the one feeling the article was biased. I am sorry I did not provide specific examples of this. Firstly, during my reading and minutes before posting the post that you answered, I changed the title of the first section from "Killing for food" to "Ethical views on eating meet". "Killing for food" is in the same vain as people who call themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion. Most people know that the way a question is worded can greatly effect someone's response and titling the subject "Killing for food" is prejudiced. Technically speaking plants have life and are killed but the bend of title is obvious. I feel like this was not an isolated situation of slant.
Finally, so many of the statements in the article are unsourced. I may be alone in this but I would get much more out of even an incomplete but well sourced article than the current one.
"Most ethical vegetarians argue that the same reasons exist against killing animals to eat as against killing humans to eat." Unfortunately, I cannot access the source but I find this a stretch. Has there really been polling on this? I would be shocked if most vegetarians hold the killing of an animal anywhere near as big an offense as the killing of a human if only for the fact that animals are not as intellectually developed. In the animal kingdom we see differing levels of consciousness, I at very least doubt that most ethical vegetarians would argue that the killing of the lesser intelligent animals at all on par with the killing of humans... and not in degrees of offense but I think the particular arguments would be quite different. The point overall is so nebulous because those arguments are not specified. A list of those arguments would certainly help. The closest thing I can find which relates to the morality of murder on wikipedia is this:
Popular atheist author and Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens remarked on the program Uncommon Knowledge:
It is the only instance of murder in the secular morality article. The references to homicide are limited to the relationship between religious belief and homicide rates. In any point, this instance certainly is at contract with the sentence from the "ethics of eating meet" article. Ethical vegetarians I am pretty sure do not eat meat mainly because they want to "get along" with animals they have never met or because human society would crumble without these values/practices.
Moving along, the Benjamin Franklin quote if I'm not mistaken was from his autobiography and while it perhaps deserves a place within a 'History' section of this article or somewhere in a social views place in this article " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Animal_Rights" (read the trial of bill burns part, it is a touching story.) I don't think it belongs in the opening section of the article "Ethics of eating meat"
The last paragraph of this first section is enlightening but the overall nature of the section has a coherent and organized reasoning against eating meat while the reasons for eating meat are sparse and seem to be mostly in response to arguments against eating meet. Perhaps that is because the argument for eating meet is weak but is there really no advocate who is pro meat eating that could counter Singer? Instead of an answer/response format of this section perhaps two sub categories of arguments against and then arguments pro could be separate. Even if there would be a tiny bit of redundancy or reintroduction (when responding to a claim from the otherside) it would make the article much less subjective.
In the animal conciousness section there is the following sentence
"Peter Singer maintains that many livestock animals are of sufficient sentience to deserve better treatment than they often receive (this, according to his ethical philosophy: personism)."
I believe this sentence subtracts from the value of the article because
1. Unless he specifies the reason for the belief it has no basis in objective though. Yes, it may be arbitrary to say X amount of consciousness deserves Y level of rights. If the idea is just one subjective opinion (albeit of someone who focuses on this area) it should not be in this wikipedia article. Finally, the argument brings up the issues about human beings who do not or no longer have the capacity for higher reasoning. Does Singer believe they should have fewer rights than a chicken?
2. The article references a philosophy which he himself designed which again seems to have no objective basis.
This being said, the parts of the article that I didn't mention seem to be well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.50.81 ( talk) 14:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
For the most part, I think the article sounds better without Harnad's edits. For starters, "reasons" sounds more encyclopedic than "scruples", but more importantly, many of the additions seem like original research because they are syntheses not backed up by any sources ( "In response, proponets of meat-eating..."; "Animals are incapable of making ethical choices..."; "Humans have a choice...")...wow, there were whole paragraphs added that have no sources whatsoever (and I'm a flexitarian myself). And as far as the non-neutral argument, well, linking to your own work is a pretty obvious way of showing so, Harnad. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC) |
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have archived this rather long talk page. HighInBC 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The following has been removed due to the apparent inadequacy of the citation.
"
"
The page that these claims cite gives its own reference to its sources, and therefore I fail to see what is necessarily lacking. Please elaborate on the issue.
Correlation does not imply causation. Studies without extensive causal data are pseudoscience, and thus do not belong on Wikipedia. 74.242.99.231 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is not written in the style of an encyclopedia reference. Rather it is written in the style one would expect from a college student's essay assignment for class. I recognize that a great deal of work has been done to search for various viewpoints on the subject and to be as unbiased as possible in making mention of those viewpoints, but that doesn't keep the work from being an essay. Perhaps some of this information could be merged with another topic such as Vegetarianism, and other parts may just not be useful for an encyclopedic reference at all. OfficeGirl 01:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree with your point of view. This is what I have done with this article: Before, After. The difference is extensive. I have of course done much since. I certainly agree any attempt to make this article more neutral.
I think a complete rewrite to a different style would be good to. I would do it, but I did the last re-write, and one of your objections is the style I used. That is okay, I am not the best writer in the world, and welcome improvements to my contributions. HighInBC 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The bulk of this article is a recounting of differing opinions in a debate-style format. (not encyclopedic) Have any of these theories changed the policies of any government entity, whether country-wide, state, province, local or municipal? Have any of these theories changed the behavior of any major, national or multi-national corporations? Have any of these theories inspired documented acts of vandalism, theft, interference with trade, boycotts or protests that were so dramatic that they forced businesses to stop functioning for a time? What about groups like PETA and the like and some of their controversial actions that have been covered in the news for many, many years-- some of those most certainly dealt with the issue of using animals for food, yes? I am not saying that this topic should be deleted, just that it really needs a LOT more work, and I think it would be more informative to people who never heard of the topic before if those who are knowledgable rolled up their sleeves and really worked on it! OfficeGirl 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It is clear to see that one or more persons have put in a great deal of time to really, really try to present opposing viewpoints as fairly as they could. I do not see any malicious intent here at all. But the vast majority of sources cited are pro-vegetarian, and the overall tone of the article still leans in the direction of attempting to persuade readers to the vegetarian viewpoint. More references from the non-vegetarian side would really help with that problem, as would cleaning up the language used to describe the vegetarian sources. OfficeGirl 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Ok. First of all it is completely wrong that the only reason to eat meat is for tradition and bias. And second of all, what does the earth being flat or round have to do with eating meat? Now, I want to start out by saying that the earth's population cannot be supported by just producing vegetables and other agrinomic plants. Why would I say this? Because farmers are already using all of the land that is tillable for grain and vegetble production. Unless you want to take out all of the rain forest, we cannot "expand the garden" and im sure you are against any genetic modified plants that would make it possible to produce more grain in a smaller amount of land. And no you cannot realisticly plant the side of a mountai. It just isn't possible. Now, unless you have any other options, we are left with eating meat. Farmers simply cannot produce for the world's population without producing meat. Trust me on this one, I am a college student who has done plenty of research in this area. Now i also want you to realize that most meat productions farms are not taking up space that could be used for growing crops. They are mostly found on rolling hills that are untillable and cannot be reasonably maintained because of erosion if we break the sod. Now, moving on. We need meat in our diets. Why do you think people in third world countries are starving? They can produce all the vegetables they want usually. What they don't have is meat. They starve from lack of protein. For example, if you want to consume the amount of protein that you would get from just 3 oz of red meat, you would have to consume three whole regular size cans of beans, or 3 pounds of sweet corn. Or try 8 pounds of potatos. We have to have protien in our diet to be healthy. And the best source is meat. Now for the ethics. I will start with poultry. I can tell you right now that egg laying hens are completely healthy and under no stress. How do i know this, because naturaly hens won't lay eggs if they are under any type of stress. So it is in the interest of the producer to make sure that his hens are happy so that they will lay eggs. simple as that. Second, there are laws that prevent the inhumane treatment of animals. Castration must be done with the least amount of stress possible. This means they do it at an early age when calves are going to experience less pain and less stress. And the slaughter of animals is humane as well. The way beef are killed ensures that the nervous system is completely destroyed so that they never feel pain through the whole process. if you have seen videos where they twich afterwards, that is muscle contractions that are just happening because the muscles don't know that they animal is dead, not because they are in agony. The blood still has oxygen going to the cells that is being transformed into energy and is being used up by cells. I hope that this entry told you a little about the animal industry and how meat is vital in this world to sustain our population also i hope you realize that animals are hardly ever treated poorly. True they aren't treated like you or any other human, but do they act like humans? NO! They don't need a whole house to live in. Animals are perfectly comfortable in smaller areas. You may not believe it, but steers sent to a confined feedlot operation are completely comfortable. There have been numerous test on their behaivior in such environments that prove that they are under minimal stress. Thank you for reading. I hope you learned something today and please tell your freinds that eating meat is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.243.219.60 ( talk) 06:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
All of the above illustrates my concerns with the article as it is currently laid out. The argument-rebuttal structure makes it look like a debate, which invites editors to take a position for or against when they make a contribution. I think it would look much more neutral if we just scrapped all the 'rebuttal' sections. Have an intro section presenting the fact that there are a number of ethical questions surrounding the consumption of meat, and that the most prominent one is whether its consumption is ethical at all. Then detail the arguments that people have made for one side. Then the other. Then describe a few of the other ethical questions: degrees of vegetarianism, and how people ethically justify their position on the line between carnivore and vegan; cultural and religious ethical views regarding what meat can and cannot be eaten and why, etc.
I'd dive right in and start by cutting the rebuttals myself, but that's major surgery on what is obviously a contentious article, so I'd like to know what others think first. Eron 23:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up up all the references so they all use the same footnote method. That is the first step, the next step I will do is go through them all and make sure the article text is supported by the citation. I hope somebody who knows the various ref templates can unify the format further, I am not so familiar with those. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Under the Health section it says that studies have found soy and/or soy products to be carcinogenic, but in the rebuttal part it does not address this. Could someone research this and explain? Lue3378 01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like some statistics on the percentage of individuals that worry/are concerned with the ethics of eating meat. I would also like a statistic individuals that are vegetarians because of the ethics of eating meat (as compared to those that do it for health reasons, etc.).
Also remember, soy beans have more toxins in than any other plant known... the energy (and hence carbon and pollutant) cost of processing it is immense. But sadly, if you want a balanced vegan diet for more than a tiny percentage of the population, soy is practically a necessity... Overall, grass reared meat is probably more environmentally friendly. Dlh-stablelights 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The meat industry is not stupid, they stand to lose billions if soy becomes too popular, so they hire scientists to research into soy to look for risks. These scientists know that if their research shows that soy is healthy they'll be out of the job. So, taking into account that even vitamins are unhealthy in large doses [3], they isolate certain chemicals from soy, feed them to rats and amazingly soy is suddenly deadly poisonous. Not even the FDA listens to these studies but for conservative talk show hosts this is the greatest thing in the world and so word starts to spread that soy isn't this miracle food but in fact has "more toxins in than any other plant known".
Soy isn't going to solve the worlds problems but moderate intake is obviously healthy (unless allergic). -- Calibas 01:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Calibas, have you heard of Monsanto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 ( talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I was reading this and a random thought popped into the ol' noggin. This debate always centers on the question of whether or not eating meat is ethical, yet it never touches on whether or not eating plants is. After all, plants are alive, and we do massacre billions, probably more - I don't have an exact figure on the death toll - every day. What makes the life of an animal that much more important than a plant? Forget speciesist(spelled?), its all kingdomist propaganda! jankyalias 1:30 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose a major revision to the entire article. I think most of us dont realize that nearly every single person on this planet has some taboos about eating meat. Sure, nearly everybody eats chicken, but what about things like horses and dogs? And if eating meat is ethical, what's wrong with cannibalism? This could be a really great article but it needs a lot of work. I think it would be much easier to read if the article was divided into broader subjects such as:
Religious aspects
Health pros and cons
Evolutionary studies
Economic aspects
Morality
Much of the article, pros and cons, needs to be removed. Unless somebody argues otherwise I'm going to get rid of the Dennis Leary quote. It's clever but I'm afraid Leary is a commedian and not an evolutionary scientist. I'm also going to remove:
I'm not really sure why this is in the scope section. And since animals without interests don't have moral rights (opinion) wouldn't that mean that animals with interests do have moral rights? This needs to be cleared up, I'm not sure what point it's trying to make. I'm going to wait until I get some feedback before I start doin any major editing. Namaste -- Calibas 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The section on the views of Christianity and Judaism regarding eating meat was deleted. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the entry that was deleted that's a matter of interpretation. The Bible verses are direct quotes, for example. I could believe that there is dispute over the matter - because people can dispute over just about anything - but I'm not personally aware of any. I'd like to revert the section, and invite the person (or whoever!) who deleted it to either add text explaining the dispute, or to discuss it here if they really feel it's wrong. Waitak 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added referenced data for global animal consumption. These figures are from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization; they are stated in metric tonnes rather than number of animals consumed, so I have removed the previous statement about 60 billion land animals per year eaten for food. (Which, if the UN FAO's figure of 220 million tonnes is correct, means each animal produced about seven pounds of meat. I'm thinking that 60 billion was a slight overstatement - even allowing for the fact that, globally, we eat many more chickens than cows.) I've also added an annual tonnage figure for fish and other aquatic life. I only skimmed through the first report I referenced, Livestock's long shadow, but I think it might be useful for putting some hard referenced facts to other claims in the article - particularly on the no-meat-thanks side of the ledger. - Eron Talk 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who put in the 60 billion figure. True, I don't have any source that says precisely that. However, if you put various figures together, you get to something like that. I don't think that just plain adding numbers counts as "original research"!
For starters, you have this page by CIWF that states that nearly 46 billion broiler chickens are reared annually in the world. That page doesn't itself give sources, but I think CIWF can count as trustworthy at least on such matters. Statistics for France for all animals can be found on the statistics site of the French agriculture ministry; counting all kinds of birds, small mammals (rabbits...), pigs, cows, etc. you get about 1.1 billion animals slaughtered every year in France (1/100th of world population). Again, that suggests something of the order of 60 billion worldwide. I had also found statistics for the US, but I dont remember the link (probably easy to find).
All in all, if no more precise sources are found, the wording of the sentence should probably be modified to recognize that the 60 billion figure is just an order of magnitude.
However, I feel that it is important to keep such an indication about numbers. I don't see what you mean when you say that the number is not significant. You can be opposed to the murder of humans, and believe that even one murder is too many, but still recognize that mass murder is not the same as one murder. That is what "scope" is about - giving an idea of the scope of the ethical problem. It is true that, depending on your ethical system, you may believe that killing some animals is ethically more serious than killing others; that killing a chimpanzee is worse than killing a mouse, for instance. So the ethical significance of numbers is not precise. It is more precise, however, than stating the number of pounds of meat, which, in itself, has no ethical significance whatever.
David Olivier 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Many of the rebuttals seem to attack straw men, and naturally, those are unsourced for the most part. I don't know if this is giving me a fair assessment of the ethics of vegetarianism, because the "Some would argue" and "Some have said" phrases seem kinda sketchy. Anyone agree with this? 146.151.23.123 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a huge problem with this section. First, it has nothing to do with the ethics of eating meat it simply states that our method of harvesting vegetables kills animals. According to Davis:
"Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn." [4]
That's IF we switch to ruminant-pasture. Nowhere is it said that everybody going vegan would kill less animals than our current model of food production. This is simply an arguement that a ruminant-pasture model would kill less animals than fully vegan one. Since we don't use a ruminant-pasture model, then wouldn't we kill less animals by going vegan? So there's an arguement for either going vegan or switching to a ruminant-pasture model. Still can't find anything about why it's right or wrong to eat meat. He does seem to imply that killing animals is wrong and we want to kill as few as possible. Secondly, his facts are questionable. Let's do the math: 1.8 billion animals killed from a fully vegan diet taking away the 300 million fewer killed annually according to his ruminant-pasture model leaves us with 1.5 billion animals, the total number that would be killed according to his model. 1.5 billion animals divided by 300 million people living in the US leaves us with 6 animals per person. So if we switch to ruminant-pasture farming and all eat 6 animals or less a year we'll kill less animals that if we all go vegan, according to his data. His agricultural model may make more sense than the one we have now but it doesn't mean it's right or wrong to eat meat. -- Calibas 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
they do it to us all the time, so it is only fair that we do it too. (they probably find us yummy too, what with recidivist man-eaters). 5000 years ago, it is likely as many animals ate people as people ate animals. -- ti 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahahaha. Is it me or is this section too funny. Large scale conversion to vegetarianism may put livestock "out of business" but wording it as "We eat them because we care for their survival" is just too funny. -- Dodo bird 10:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Errr... guys... Where all this arguments have come from? What is the reason for them to be here? Personally, I think I can come up for much better arguments but as they are only mine I don't think they should be on Wikipedia (or should they?). If that's the case, then I'll gladly add some. -- Taraborn 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Where is there proof of ANYTHING in here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Migospia ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Whoever wrote the first line in the Health section didn't check the reference very carefully. It simply states that rats given extra choline have healthier brains. Choline is found in beef liver and egg yolk, but also in large amounts in soy, iceberg lettuce, peanuts and cauliflower.
The second line, about omega-3 fatty acids, fails to mention why some fish have such high levels of omega-3. It's because they eat plants high in omega-3. There's plenty of plants that have high levels of omega-3 fatty acids that humans have easy access to.
The B-12 section should be kept but it should mention that while you cant get B-12 from plants, you cant get it from animals either. B-12 only comes from bacteria. The brand of Kombucha I drink has bacteria colonies inside and, according to the FDA, has plenty of B-12. Plus, you can get B-12 from cheese, you dont need to eat meat.
The next part: "The belief that it is not healthy to abstain from meat, and that abstaining from meat during pregnancy could harm a child, could outweigh ethical consideration for animals." Duh. This really doesn't say anything and I'm curious as to who is making this arguement. This belief does outweigh the ethical consideration for many people who eat meat, but is the belief true?
Lastly, the part about soy. Even if soy was deadly poisonous, why would this make eating meat ethical? Cant I be a vegetarian and not eat soy?
Seems to me that this section is either an arguement for eating meat or a well balanced vegetarian diet. -- Calibas 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've edited this paragraph:
Biological thermodynamics demonstrates that regardless of the style of cultivation, animals being consumers in the ecological pyramid, are bound to transfer only around 10% of the nutrition and energy they consume to the next trophic level. The rest 90% energy is released into the ecosystem increasing its entropy, which has to be pumped out of the ecosystem to maintain internal order, or a condition of low entropy. To maintain order in any self-organizing dynamical system, like the Earth's ecosystem, energy must be expended to pump out disorder. Large-scale meat-eating generates a very large entropy overhead, and at the same time leaves the ecosystem with very little energy for pumping it out.
There is an important argument against meat-eating here, but this paragraph misses the point. The discussion of entropy is a red herring - the 90% of energy that isn't transfered directly up the ecological pyramid will find its way to microbes and the soil via decomposition. The paragraph implies that animals create some kind of entropy pollution, which is simply untrue. There is also a contradiction in the paragraph. First, it states that huge amounts of energy are released into ecosystems by animals, then it says that ecosystems are lacking in energy to deal with this. Rubisco 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There isn't an article on Ethics of eating vegetables, since they are life forms just like animals. People who value life and eat vegetables are ignoring that plants have lives too and don't want to be eaten. Wouldn't it be nice to create a kind of tablet in labs that contain all the energy and necessary nutrients one needs? In the future, people can just eat tablets to sustain themselves.-- 141.213.198.142 03:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a very valid argument. Kindly stay with me for a moment...
"In botany, a fruit is the ripened ovary—together with seeds—of a flowering plant. In many species, the fruit incorporates the ripened ovary and surrounding tissues. Fruits are the means by which flowering plants disseminate seeds", so that means plants and other animals (including us, humans) have an agreement (sth they call like Symbiosis?) that they create ovaries with seeds. We "need" ovary's energy etc and then in this way that plant gets its seeds (say its children) to different locations and thus propagate its species (the ultimate purpose of every, every living being?)- and that may not be too UNethical
But, what is the agreement with animals?
But, how much we ponder over it, and try to find a consistent understanding, it may lead away from Non-Vegetarianism
User:Calibas (just above) is right when they feel, "I think the only real difference is that plants are far enough away from humans on the evolutionary tree that people don't relate to them in the same way."
Animals suffer. It must be really painful.
(personal opinion) > Some things cannot change. But I personally choose not to kill (indirectly) an animal, a live animal, just for my taste. I choose to kill an animal, if I am lost in the forest and MY OWN SURVIVAL is in question...hmmm
I was a Non-Veg, but after being forwarded a YouTube video of cow slaughter, and then observing some others (it is painful. believe me, you can see in their eyes) I cried and firmly made up my mind never to have a factory worker kill someone, for the taste of the spices, that have been cooked with flesh. Kindly keep the discussion going.< -- Nothing is free in this world 03:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Plants are able to heal, like humans and animals. they grow toward the sun, which is their life source. their roots stretch out to soak up water and nutrients. plants most certainly "want" to live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.62.234 ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If no one objects, I'm going to come through in a while and delete all of the rebuttals that lack citations, or a "see [x]". The Jade Knight 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine by me. The way I see it, we are all part of the food chain, just on different levels of it. Do you think a lion or a shark would think twice about eating a human, in case it hurt our feelings? No, of course it wouldn't, we are just lunch, the same as a tasty bit of dead pig.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.9.155 ( talk • contribs)
"According to the US National Institutes of Health, refraining from eating meat leads to increased risk of developing Vitamin B-12 deficiencies." Can someone provide a reference for this statement? Everywhere I look on the NIH website says you're only at risk if you dont eat meat, dairy or eggs. [12] [13] [14] Here's an article on an NIH site claiming you can get B12 from fermented soy. [15] -- Calibas 00:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
One problem with this article is that the very discussions presented have been based on a vague and arbitrary set of terms. For instance, it is all very well to base arguments on sentience and on the definition of sentience as per a single book, but that undermines the scope of the article from the start. There are no reasons cited as to why this would be a valid starting point, or why one should exclude arguements based on anything else. Also terms such as pleasure and pain are inherently vague and open to interpretation. When an arguement is made based on the ability of a being to experience either, it is vital that a clear definition of pleasure or pain be adopted. consider my addition of the reference to JC Bose; he interpretted the violent electrochemical changes in plant physiology caused by physical mutilation as an experience of pain. There can be no 'proof' or 'disproof' of this experience, as it is entirely a matter of definition. we must be careful tat ethical arguements donot become arguements of definition. People should not use this article as a place to haggle over words. So when making an arguement state clearly the definitions that go with a particular belief, and for god's sake don't generalize those definitions as being supreme or the Chosen One or anything like that. Leopart 10:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the first rebuttal because it made unfounded claims that were not reflected in the websites sited. It claimed that conclusive proof has been found that animals do feel pain. The articles sited explicitly stated that animal can experience nocioception but human pain also involved an emotional element which may or may not exist in animals. Rafiqr 03:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The largest problem with this article is the format. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a high school debate. We could combine it all together into a regular article but I doubt anybody wants to do all that work. Luckily, most of the page violates one of Wikipedia's basic policies, Wikipedia:No original research. Specifically, the part about no original analysis or synthesis of established facts. I'll go through every section and explain the problems.
I'm out of time but I'll be back to take an axe to the rest of the article. I'll add {{ Fact}} tags to the things I mentioned here and post the problems with the rest of the artictle. I'll wait about a week for discussion before I start deleting and shortly after that I'll get rid of the argument/rebuttal format. -- Calibas 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
For reference, the page before it lost 90% of its content is here. Some of the info was good and should be re-added, but ONLY if references are sourced. Good luck to whomever takes on that little project... — Eric Herboso 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not revert this page to it's pre-stub status, it was nominated for deletion and the decision was to stubify. The old page reads like a high school debate. It's got good info sporadicly but much of it is original research. If you want to take the well referenced parts and put them into this article feel free but do not bring back the point-counterpoint format. -- Calibas 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not letting this page go back to the screwed up mess it used to be! To the editors currently working on this page, provide references for the information you add or it's probably going to be deleted. I highly recommend reading WP:NOR and WP:RS, if you haven't read those you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. -- Calibas 23:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I came to this page because I was honestly curious about the ethical arguments for and against eating meat, but was surprised to see the article is barely more than a stub, most of which does not even discuss the ethics of the issue (the only relevant sentence is: "Reasons for objecting to the practice of killing may include a belief in animal rights, environmental ethics, or an aversion to inflicting pain or harm on other living creatures due to conscience."). I am sure a reliably sourced article can be written that would provide an in-depth analysis of why some people feel it is wrong to eat meat, and why others disagree. I hope someone will expand this article so it covers some of the actual ethical debates over this issue, rather than just saying 'some people do this. some people do that'. Terraxos 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this picture really necessary? This encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral but it seems that the picture is there soley to disgust the viewer and make him/her sympathize with the cause. I agree with the poster a few sections above. This article seems to be more pro-vegan than neutral. I propose that the image be deleted as it seems to favor non-meat eating and is quite biased.-- _ BaRiMzI _ 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Much of this article has nothing to do with ethics. In fact, ethics is a branch of philosophy and only two philosophers are even mentioned. I'm going to delete the following sections unless someone fixes this problem:
Animals have feelings and can suffer - why is it wrong to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
Damage to the environment - why is it wrong to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
Eating meat is a natural behaviour - why is it right to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
Animals have a lower level of consciousness - why is it right to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
Health - why is it right to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
Animal suffering is not required to getting meat - why is it right to eat meat because of this and who is arguing this point?
It may seem that I'm picking on the pro-meat arguments but none of those are ethical arguments. I haven't been able to find any recent philosophers that argue it's ethical to eat meat. As far as I can tell, the ethics are based on religious doctrine and Descartes idea that animals lack consciousness. This page has some good info [17]. Wikipedia is not a message board for editors to voice their opinions, so there may be heavy deletions soon. -- Calibas 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Braithwaite, V. A.; P. Boulcott. Pain perception, aversion and fear in fish http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=565752
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=565752
Since my fish information in the article has been deleted without any reason, I leave these fish sensitive contents with you guys
Environmental ethics forms a major part of discourse on ethics of meat eating due to (a) ecological implications of meat eating and (b) relevance of environmental ethics concepts like anthropocentrism and speciesism in the context of meat-eating. This article currently talks about ethics mostly from an animal rights perspective, and is therefore very seriously incomplete. deeptrivia ( talk) 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the opening paragraph a bit, per WP:WEASEL. I'll keep an eye out for other sections. 74.242.103.167 13:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the article is focused on ethics regarding the consumption of meat, I don't feel it's safe to include an image of burgers on a grill. This more or less gives the article a pro-stance toward the issue. I'm not really sure how the image is necessary at all. 74.242.103.167 13:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that both images are "neutral"? One seeks to romanticize hunting, another to condemn modern slaughter techniques. All I am suggesting that each picture should be discussed for neutrality before insertion into his article.-- Hq3473 12:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be moved to something a bit broader, for example ethics of vegetarianism and veganism or something like that? Richard001 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"Vegetarians and vegans usually respond to the first argument that many natural behaviors of animals would be appalling if exhibited by humans, for example, rape, intra-species killing (what we call murder), and cannibalism."
I'd like to see a source or study that shows that animals rape and murder (for reasons other then defence or food).
The whole section which this quote comes from is really biased imho (apart from the last paragraph) this needs some serious fixing. Gelsamel 09:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Though humans don't generally want to agree with this rape is very common and in some cases part of our nature. Rape is horrible however. But when it comes to animals there's a big picture that people generally forget or don't realize. The majority of female animals do not feel sexual pleasure and rape in the animal kingdom really is different then what it is in humanity. Aml51z ( talk) 20:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that talking about humans as meat is a bit distracting in this article, but I also think that a mention, as in the most recent version, is appropriate, particularly since it is included in a list of animals that some people don't eat. Maybe it should have a wiki-link to canibalism? Bob98133 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Two simple scenarios that tend to be ignored:
- as stated a couple of sections earlier, most species used for the production of meat only exist because they were artificially selected for that purpose (same with milk and eggs -- dairy cows tend to produce more milk than they could naturally utilise and may even suffer if left un-milked). These species are mostly incapable of surviving in the wild because they've been domesticated for centuries or even millenia. Not only would the species probably die out, the individuals that are alive to die in the meat production wouldn't be alive without the meat industry needing them -- this poses an interesting (and I do mean, interesting) consideration about cost and benefit for the individual (what is the proportion of the suffering the individual experiences in its life in comparison to its gain of being alive in the first place -- this doubles as a consideration for abortion decisions).
- what if meat production wouldn't require the killing of actual animals? Imagine a cow that would quickly recover severed flesh, was born and raised in a laboratory (i.e. no impact on relatives) and is incapable of experiencing pain (genetic manipulation to deactivate the specific nervous subsystems). Or if that grosses you out too much, let's remove the sentience from the equation and imagine a lump of bovine flesh that grows (like a cancer), supplied by a laboratory rather than a sentient creature's body -- i.e. what about artificially produced flesh (much like artificially produced skin): how do we argue against that?
Lastly, and this is more of a transitional argument, we could even take into consideration the universal cost and benefit of meat production. Certainly humans benefit from eating meat (certain nutrients can not be found in the local fauna in the appropriate doses -- let's ignore artificial supplements here for sanity's sake) and animals suffer from being killed or having a close relative/mate/acquaintance killed. But what is the equilibrium if we take into consideration the overall benefits and costs (read: suffering)? I'm pretty sure we would arrive at some point above total zero -- no sane person would argue, taking our anatomy and genetic history into consideration, that we used to eat meat in the past and obviously gained enough benefits from it to justify developing specialised organs and teeth for the purpose (or less specialised herbivore gear), so the problem (in terms of health) is most likely not that we eat meat, but the amount of meat we eat (a hunter/gather community would most likely not rely on meat as the main resource, but it would do well utilising it whenever possible).
i.e. it's not that we weren't built to eat meat, we probably just eat way too much and too little vegetables. Just as we were never meant to eat candy all day, although we are fond of sugary sweetness for obvious health benefits (ripe fruit being sweet and all that).
But back to the main points -- what are the ethical arguments against meat if animal breeding/killing were taken out of the equation? And how much ethical wrong would the killing cause if the lifetime enjoyment of animals used in the meat production were improved and the killing were made less uncomfortable? -- 62.143.101.71 ( talk) 11:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Um... Why does this page exist? This page is patently not about "the ethics of eating meat", but is rather a page dedicated to giving adamant vegetarians and omnivores a place to square off. Is the debate between vegetarians and others so heated that eating meat must now be justified? Likewise, considering that humans have been eating meat throughout our existence and only in the past 6000 years developed an agricultural diet, shouldn't the title of the article be focused on the ethics or reasons why individuals engage in a vegetarian diet? This entire topic seems absolutely ridiculous. 164.67.226.47 12:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Greenwoodtree 00:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added a "consider for deletion" template so everyone can consider. Is this OK? -- Greenwoodtree 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur. In the past, I avocated the deletion of this article and the moving any specific topics to the appropriate wiki article. It's not an encyclopediatic article or topic. This is a philosophical point and not a factual topic by its own right. It just isn't a factual discussion, even with sources, because those sources were being used to make a point (original research). Fcsuper 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
obviously, this page hits home with the editor's. I'm not quite sure which way, but I'm grateful nonetheless for this page and the first page. There's enough to get you thinking, at least, and to show that the topic is not quite finished yet. I think the philosopher's thought are most relevant, and perhaps other theological perspectives, but this topic comes from them for them. -Caramelizeme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.38.47 ( talk) 02:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with that statement. Every person I know who eats meat, myself included, have an ethical objection to it. There's no excuse for eating meat, not even dietary. It's a culturally imposed thing from fifty years of meat industry brainwashing. I think it'd be safer to say that people with lower educations may not have ethical objections, yet people with average or above average educations and intelligence appreciate the situation more thoroughly and understand it's not a viable long term food source, especially with it's impact on global warming.
As a meat eater, I downright object to the concept that 'a great majority of people' have no ethical objections and think that's selling meat eaters short as ignorant, heartless idiots. We're just caught in a paradox. Jachin ( talk) 11:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Most meat-eaters don't have ethical concerns about eating meat. They may object to how animals are treated in slaughterhouses but that doesn't mean they have ethical concerns about actually eating meat, at least of animals of much lower consciousness than humans. Bobisbob ( talk) 20:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, however the opening does say that most meat-eaters have no ethical concerns about eating certain types of animal meat. Also, I am pretty sure people don't eat rat meat because of the rat's reputation as being a dirty animal not because they think it's immoral to eat rat meat. I don't know about horses and dogs though, I guess you have a point. Bobisbob ( talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed it for the time being until something better can be entered. It was just a ridiculous thing to say. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is very narrow and in sore need of work, so take a look at this: [18] - it's a peta website but it cites sources, which we can use. And there are a lot of them. I stumbled across it and it can provide much information about objections to eating meat that stem from enviornmental, economical, and moral issues regarding the mental and emotional abilities of animals (all documented, as we don't want pure peta rantings). It diserves some serious picking apart so we can actually have some well sourced information. Just one example: according to the website, "A major 2006 report by the United Nations ... said raising animals for food is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." The actual report, written by the Livestock, Enviornment, and Development Initiative is actually an effort "supported" by the United Nations, the European Union, and several other U.S and world government organizations, but the peta website quoted correctly: [19] (big file, high bandwidth necessary) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What has this section has to do with Ethics of eating meat? Taken at face value the argument is: "we should not eat meat because animals are treated badly" so doe sit follow that "if animals are treated well it is OK to eat meat?" The argument seems to be pointed at "ethic of treating animals" NOT at Ethics of eating meat. I suggest removing the whole section.-- Hq3473 ( talk) 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly see why vegetarians would be opposed to raising animals on farms just for the purpose of being slaughtered and shipped to stores to be bought and eaten. But I wonder what they would think upon meeting somebody who does not depend on the market system for food, but rather attains all of his food by the power of his own abilities; A person who must hunt and trap animals for survival but has great respect for the animals he kills. This person uses every part of the animal, the meat, skin, bones, not a thing is wasted. It would be impossible for him to be a vegetarian, as no one ecosystem on earth has enough variety of vegetation to support a healthy human being (a male anyway.) would a vegetarian or vegan view this as wrong? on the other hand, these vegetarians and vegans depend on technology for their survival. If they didn't have the boats and trucks that bring over exotic fruits and vegetables, they would die. If they didn't have the years of scientifc research into the nutritional value of the world's vegetation, they would not be able to maintain the carefully monitered diet that keeps them alive. I get very tired of vegetarians talking about how "natural" their diet is. I think they should go into the woods and see how long they can live off of the plants they can find. Vegetarians are not seperate from the rest of the masses of humanity that are destroying the earth with their dependance on technology. It is ridiculous to think that something the entirety of humanity has been doing since the beginning of time is unnatural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.62.234 ( talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"It is ridiculous to think that something the entirety of humanity has been doing since the beginning of time is unnatural." It certianly would be, but this is supposed to be about the ethics of meat not if it is natural or not. they are not the same thing! [ [20]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.168.114 ( talk) 21:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The point about hunting and eating all of the parts is a good point. However, there is a reference to Peter Singer who says that if you can avoid killing then you should. I believe the ethics of eating meat is a decent article as the introduction states that some people do not eat meat because of moral reason, health, or the conditions in which the animal had to live through. This means some current vegetatarians wouldnt eat meat in the forest because they are against killing, and some would because there isn't mass cruelty and slaughter. This distinction is made in the article and thus passes for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.141.9 ( talk) 18:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Although I am speaking as a vegetarian here, I think the images of raw meat, etc. in the article are at best distracting. I don't see what including pictures of dead animals has to contribute to an article about an ethical debate that is inclined to draw readers who are *against* eating meat and who consequently wouldn't like to see those images. If I come to read an article about an ethical issue, I don't expect to have to try to exclude the images from my view because I find them disgusting. This makes the article far less readable, while contributing absolutely nothing to its value or aesthetics. Before other people jump at me for simply pushing my own viewpoint about the images being unappealing, I would like to say that the images are detrimental to the article not because I personally dislike them, but because they're not neutral. If you include an image that could potentially offend or put off one party that participates in the argument, you're to some extent limiting the ability of the article to be edited to correct for mischaracterization of pro-veg views, which in my opinion constitutes bias. In short: putting images that are redundant into an article not dealing with a specific viewpoint (opposed to e.g. graphs of resource consumption of different agricultural techniques) that succeed in putting off one party to the argument are inherently biased and should be removed. - Space Dracula ( talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think people are missing something obvious here. The article is not meat. So picture of meat is kind of pointless. A picture of someone eating meat is a different story, and may in fact be entirely relevant. It may be very appropriate, in fact, to have a picture, say, of one person eating meat (wearing an NRA hat and holding a rifle too maybe) and another person looking angry and disgusted and pointing a finger (holding a sign maybe). Thought bubbles may add to the informative nature of the picture also. -- C S ( talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Puellanivis's earlier comment "The animal died so that I could have meat": I only note in passing that this statement has exactly the same form as the one that Noam Chomsky spotted on a statue: "Here lies an Indian woman, a Wampanoag, whose family and tribe gave of themselves and their land that this great nation might be born and grow." (Quoted in Manufacturing Consent.) The respective agents of both the animal's death and the Wampanoag woman's death go unmentioned, as does the extent to which each of them gave their consent. (Full disclosure: I'm a meat-eater who knows of no ethical justification for my meat-eating.) Lexo ( talk) 12:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this article, since it's an Encyclopedia article, is an informative one, not a persuasive one (and that's coming from a vegetarian). Secondly, I TOTALLY agree with you. Like, 100%. We don't need meat in an article about arguements for meat. Quintus314 ( talk) 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that this page is not written from a standpoint of neutrality. I know that most of the editors on here are likely vegan/vegetarian, so it is understandable that the neutrality has shifted, but I would urge additional editors to step up and make some changes to bring more balance to this article. From the get-go this article sets about proving that it is unethical to eat meat, and there needs to be ammendments, not necessarily pro-carnivore views. 205.200.1.246 ( talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this article's neutrality is not so much the content, but the slanted phraseology. For example, in the section "The Ethics of Killing for Food," the phrase "some opponents of ethical vegetarianism..." is obviously slanted in such a way as to portray people who believe that eating meat is acceptable as "opponents," and more specifically opponents of something that is "ethical." It would be more neutral to say something like "some proponents of eating meat..." In fact, even the title of the section "The Ethics of Killing for Food" exhibits a subtle bias with its stark reference to "killing." The title could simply be "The Ethics of Eating Meat," although I'm afraid that a title like that might sanitize meat-eating too much and thus slant in the opposite direction. In any event, it's quite possible that the authors of this article, most of whom are probably ethical vegetarians or vegans, did not intend to slant the wording like this but simply wrote the article, intending to for it to be neutral, and their biases came out subconsciously. In any event, this article should be cleaned up to ensure neutral phrasing of ideas. Incidentally, I sympathize with the ethical arguments made by vegetarians and vegans regarding the treatment of animals, but I think that these points should be brought out in the article in a neutral, unbiased fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree this article is NOT neutral and is promoting veganism. Here are the following problems I have detailed by each section:
Ethics of killing for food: Has nothing on killing or processing of animal products for agricultural purpose (ie. deforestation and habitat destruction for monoculture in crops such as soy and banana, killing of agricultural pest (ie. birds, slugs, rodents), and production of fertilizers (ie. fish emulsion, bone meal, blood-meal)
Treatment of animals: Mentions nothing on free range farming nor integrated agroforestry farming methods
Animal consciousness under Pain: It mentions nothing about eating genetically engineered meats nor does it mentioned eating animals without nerves such as ( bivalves (excluding oysters which should be added here), sea urchins, Jellyfish, or arthropods.
Ethical vegetarianism: mentions nothing about honey nor the captive cultivation of bees and worms for their bi-products.
Environmental argument: Only mentions monoculture and its statistics, nothing about site specific production of food in unfarmable land where limited crops can be grown which can be grazed by cattle or areas that are less accessible by transportation such as artic tundra areas where meat is primarily consumed (ie. Tibet, some parts of Alaska). Also nothing about hunting for food (and controlling invasive edible species) efficiencies of alternative practices (biogas digesters for power using animal waste,integrated hydroponic systems, Florida stone crab claw harvesting), and plowing fields using animals in 3rd world countries.
Also nothing addressing economic cost/benefits of production of meat substitutes (ie soy based meats, vegetarian bacon, vitamins) and a section needs to be made on Health Responsibility/Irresponsibility that addresses Vitamin deficiency (B12, Iron, D), Cases of baby deaths from careless malnutrition, and cat blindness and deaths from being fed non AAFCO certified vegan cat food. -- Cs california ( talk) 11:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Such a weak point shouldn't be nearly so long as it is. Plus the enormous changes to food production and diet that would be required should be stressed first. Also, the 1.2 billion animals killed is utter fantasy as every acre of available farmland wouldn't be needed if people switched to a vegetarian diet. In fact, I think we'd be using less farmland as an enormous amount of the food grown on farms goes to feeding cattle.
And if that's not enough, this is an article on ethics and I don't see any of that in Davis' argument. -- Calibas ( talk) 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I had a go at reducing this to something more appropriate. I don't see that including Tom Regan's arguments and whether or not they agree with Davis is necessary. I have stated Davis position and indicated that it is not universally accepted. Going to refs explains the points that I removed. I hope present version solves WP:UNDUE situation. Please discuss if you think more of this material should be included. Thanks. Bob98133 ( talk) 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the decision to reduce the material on Davis and the debate around his work. If you read Davis's paper and the rebuttals this page linked to, you will see that the reasons cited above to cut the Davis material are not on target.
For example, it is not true that his argument depends on massive changes to the agricultural industry to make its point: the references to national statistics were simply a way of illustrating his point. Someone who agreed with his argument could act on that belief now by eating some grass feed beef and no other meat.
It is also the case that he is clearly making an explicitly ethical argument, just as advocates of not eating meat do. Davis's argument is based on the principle of least harm, which he borrow from moral philosopher Tom Regan, and which is a moral principle.
An entry mentioning Davis also does not violate Wikipedia's policy regarding original research (OR). The policy applies to what Wikipedians write ourselves. It is not a policy against citing previously published research.
I sense that some of the opposition to a longer section on Davis is because people disagree with his argument. As it happens I am a vegetarian and I share the view that his argument is mistaken. But it deserves a longer section, for two reasons.
One is influence. Davis has been cited in cover stories in Time, The New York TImes Magazine, a book by influential author Michael Pollan, and many, many discussions on the Internet. His argument has also generated rebuttals in academic journals by two critics who thought it was important enough to respond to. An argument that meets those conditions deserves more than passing mention.
The second reason it warrants inclusion is that the section was not about Davis, but the *debate* around Davis. One of the rebuttals linked to (Lamey) basically turned his argument around, and said that if Davis's moral assumptions are correct, he has actually strengthened the argument for vegetarianism. So even if one disagrees with Davis's original conclusions, there is still a case to be made for the longer section, as Davis has set of a larger debate that is independent of his recommendations re diet.
For all of these reasons, I am going to restore the longer section on the debate around Davis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porphyry Jones ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Bob. As I read the previous discussion, you and another editor thought it was too long and there was a third, Steven W., who thought it should be longer. I am with Steven so it is two votes on either side, so I did not think I was doing anything untoward. Based on the above, there seems just as much support for my position as for yours.
Regarding your comments,if by OR you are referring to Wikipedia's policy against original research, the longer version does not violate this policy, as you will see if you review the policy in question. Again, it is a policy against you or I introducing material not already published elsewhere.
You also mention the undue emphasis policy. This is why I mentioned all the places Davis has been cited. There is a live debate going on about his work, and this page could be helpful to people who have been following it. But right now the entry is so short, it is hard to even get a sense of who has said what on either side.
You mention that Davis's argument is flawed, and I agree. But note that the criteria for an argument being mentioned on Wikipedia is not based on its truth. Also, the entry as I had it did not endorse Davis argument. It said he had put his argument forward and mentioned the rebuttals to it, pointing interested readers to further sources. That would be of service to people interested in this topic. Right now this section is too brief to be of much use to anyone. Even if you felt the previous version was too long, right now it is so short to be informative. Porphyry Jones ( talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. If you read the Lamey paper linked to you might get a sense of why someone sympathetic to vegetarianism would want this material to be included. Davis has misunderstood the ramifications of his own argument. If people come here and read the long version, or at least one longer than what is there now, they will be more likely to see that than if this material is missing. Porphyry Jones ( talk) 15:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Porphyry Jones, if you've read and understand Davis' work feel free to rewrite the section. And please concentrate on the ethical argument that Davis is making, the previous version is rather lacking there.
You also said that Davis' argument doesn't depend upon massive changes to the agricultural industry. If that's the case, then the sources we have here completely misrepresent Davis. Here's Time magazine: "Applying (and upending) Regan's least-harm theory, Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace poultry and pork production with beef, lamb and dairy products." That's an enormous change to the agricultural industry. You say you've read Davis' work, is Time magazine wrong here?
Then there's the very crux of Davis' argument, the number of animals actually killed. This number is nothing more than a guess. The whole thing isn't based upon any solid evidence. I think the only reason Davis received so much focus in this article (and in the media), isn't because he presents a good argument, it's because it's one of the only arguments on why eating meat is ethical. -- Calibas ( talk) 15:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I stumbled across this page last night and saw the Davis section. To me, I think the concept Davis introduced is one worthy of discussion if in fact there is evidence that a path other than vegetarianism/veganism would cause less harm & death and would continue to do so when implemented on a large-scale. However, I find Davis' paper offers no such evidence and is in fact severely flawed. Thus, when seeing what struck me as two sentences that seemed to offer a very weak rebuttal, I attempted to edit this section.
Granted, I've never edited a wiki page before and much to my surprise, though I thought I was only updating the section, I ended up updating the whole page. Fortunately, there was a big, red undo button for me to push!
After reverting the page back to its original state, I found this 'talk' about the Davis section and thought I'd add my two cents. Personally, I think what is currently on the page looks like Davis has a great argument and the counterpoints are weak enough that they aren't worth getting into. I understand the concept of not wanting to ramble on about Davis' paper since it is so very flawed. At the same time, for better or worse, his paper is brought up again and again. Thus I think, like it or not, it is a subject that arises on 'meat ethics' and needs to have something stronger than three sentences.
I didn't create this page, so I know my vote doesn't really count. But, if it did, I would vote to have more in that section. Though one could (I know I could) create a rather long list of issues with this paper - each of which alone would negate the conclusion, I think that Mathney's points are succinct enough that no one needs look any further. (One could include Lamey's points as done here(as well as other points made), but again, I think one needs to look no further than the math.)
That said, 'my'* version is below. If you'd like to use it (and then delete it from the talk section), feel free. Otherwise, if you'd simply like to delete it from the talk section, that's fine as well. *I have not personally verified the PhD candidate status of Mathney. This information came from here as did a portion of the text used Lolaabc ( talk) 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed the enormous quote from George Will for a few different reasons. It never addressed the ethics of eating meat itself, only the ethical treatment of animals. It was far too long without really getting to any point. It was attributed to George Will, who's mostly just summing up a book by Matthew Scully. Here's an article Scully wrote on the subject [22] if someone wants to add that to the article (paraphrasing usually works better than long quotes). -- Calibas ( talk) 23:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there not some evidence to suggest that the promotion of a vegan lifestyle as more moral (eh?) more worthy (come again?) automaticly place it in the realm of the nursery of the religious?
Ethics if you could find a substance / wavefield /colour/ something you could measure with an Ethic-o-gram the one thing you would say about an Ethical Effect was it tends to counter that which is innate; in short anything ethical is sexual selection, which last time I looked was the consensus with what a religion is for
81.109.247.189 (
talk)
00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Constantly deleting my point about plant pain is not benefiting this article. This topic has not be officially addressed in academic literature so obviously theres no source I can provide but as a 4th year medical student I think the scientific reasoning in my argument against a so called 'plant pain' hypothesis is solid and should be in the article. Certainly if you are going to delete that paragraph then delete the entire plant pain section because its completely a ludicrous argument. Destruction of plant cells causes pain because cells are living? This is a joke of biological pseudoscience likely written by someone with minimal education and understanding of the Biological and Medical sciences.
Ok, where is the reference for the 'counter argument'? I see no reference. It is basically a contributor's opinion to the same degree my entry was. Removing the entire argument is the only fair thing if this is your stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodtactical ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Vegetarian/Vegan ethics are coherent enough if compared with other mainstream moral issues, probably even more logic than other more controversial. A provocative example: it makes more sense not to inflict pain to a cow than to refrain from mating with a fully developed 13-15 year old girl, and act which in most ancient society would be considered normal. Having said that I think the advocates of Vegetarian/Vegan lyfestyle should interrogate themsels on the consequences of their choices. I am not aware of any large mammal that is not a lifestock and is not in danger of extinction in Europe. Bears have for long been on the verge of disappearing from the alpes, Game in general is kept alive in reserves etcc. What should be of the millions of cows which we shall not eat? Think to what happened to horses when they ceased to be a mean of transport; I did took the effort to look for a reference Population of Horses 1880-2000 and take a 50%+ reduction as a conservative figure and consider that although not for food or transport horses still are a versatile source of "animal force" (in all its forms); a similar case could not be immagined for cows. Honestly I do not see any grassland in Europe suitable for sustaing any population of wild cattle and it can easily be seen that what applies to Europe applies to any named developed area in the world. So I think this article should also cover the moral issue of the dependance of livestock animals on meat eaters, not to consider the consequence of the implementation of moral ethics on the production of an immense variety of byproducts of animal farming (leather just to name one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispinoecrispiano ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
A different take on the implications for animals of not eating them is the resultant impacts on their welfare. Not sure how to cite this - but in personal communications both PETA and Animal Sanctuary AR organisations have informed me that - should be be wildly successful in ending animal agriculture - it would then be acceptable for the non-domesticate ruminants (wild graziers) that replace grazing eco-system niches - it would be acceptable for them to die of predation, starvation, dehydration, and/or disease....this presents a logical inconsistency - or at least logical nuance challenging the veg*n world view.....but where I only have personal communications regarding this - not sure how to include it however critical it may be to the topic. Ideas? MythicMeats ( talk) 08:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Mycobovine
Just out of curiosity, when people say that meat eating is wrong, immoral, unneccesary etc, are they simply talking about humans? Are there any reasons why other animals in the animal kingdom should not eat meat? Portillo ( talk) 02:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I want animal activists to know that the lack of neutrality in this article does not allow me to seriously question my meat eating practices. Those who vandalize or spin this article, while their intentions may be honourable are greatly hurting their cause. If someone comes to this article, they are either already against eating meat or they are willing and open to question their practices. Personally, I hesitated before clicking on this link (it was a google search result that i wasn't looking for). I hesitated because I feared that reading something which would cause me to question my practices and maybe make me change my lifestyle would be hard for me to do (I am going through tough times with a lot of personal pressures). I clicked the link though because willful ignorance or shunning objective facts is not an excuse. I will revisit this wikipedia page in the future to see if it is in fact more neutral.
Someone could say that I could browse through all sorts of academic and medical journals and that the information is out there. I have tried doing this with other topics and it is fruitless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.88.10 ( talk) 17:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for answering me (I was the one feeling the article was biased. I am sorry I did not provide specific examples of this. Firstly, during my reading and minutes before posting the post that you answered, I changed the title of the first section from "Killing for food" to "Ethical views on eating meet". "Killing for food" is in the same vain as people who call themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion. Most people know that the way a question is worded can greatly effect someone's response and titling the subject "Killing for food" is prejudiced. Technically speaking plants have life and are killed but the bend of title is obvious. I feel like this was not an isolated situation of slant.
Finally, so many of the statements in the article are unsourced. I may be alone in this but I would get much more out of even an incomplete but well sourced article than the current one.
"Most ethical vegetarians argue that the same reasons exist against killing animals to eat as against killing humans to eat." Unfortunately, I cannot access the source but I find this a stretch. Has there really been polling on this? I would be shocked if most vegetarians hold the killing of an animal anywhere near as big an offense as the killing of a human if only for the fact that animals are not as intellectually developed. In the animal kingdom we see differing levels of consciousness, I at very least doubt that most ethical vegetarians would argue that the killing of the lesser intelligent animals at all on par with the killing of humans... and not in degrees of offense but I think the particular arguments would be quite different. The point overall is so nebulous because those arguments are not specified. A list of those arguments would certainly help. The closest thing I can find which relates to the morality of murder on wikipedia is this:
Popular atheist author and Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens remarked on the program Uncommon Knowledge:
It is the only instance of murder in the secular morality article. The references to homicide are limited to the relationship between religious belief and homicide rates. In any point, this instance certainly is at contract with the sentence from the "ethics of eating meet" article. Ethical vegetarians I am pretty sure do not eat meat mainly because they want to "get along" with animals they have never met or because human society would crumble without these values/practices.
Moving along, the Benjamin Franklin quote if I'm not mistaken was from his autobiography and while it perhaps deserves a place within a 'History' section of this article or somewhere in a social views place in this article " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Animal_Rights" (read the trial of bill burns part, it is a touching story.) I don't think it belongs in the opening section of the article "Ethics of eating meat"
The last paragraph of this first section is enlightening but the overall nature of the section has a coherent and organized reasoning against eating meat while the reasons for eating meat are sparse and seem to be mostly in response to arguments against eating meet. Perhaps that is because the argument for eating meet is weak but is there really no advocate who is pro meat eating that could counter Singer? Instead of an answer/response format of this section perhaps two sub categories of arguments against and then arguments pro could be separate. Even if there would be a tiny bit of redundancy or reintroduction (when responding to a claim from the otherside) it would make the article much less subjective.
In the animal conciousness section there is the following sentence
"Peter Singer maintains that many livestock animals are of sufficient sentience to deserve better treatment than they often receive (this, according to his ethical philosophy: personism)."
I believe this sentence subtracts from the value of the article because
1. Unless he specifies the reason for the belief it has no basis in objective though. Yes, it may be arbitrary to say X amount of consciousness deserves Y level of rights. If the idea is just one subjective opinion (albeit of someone who focuses on this area) it should not be in this wikipedia article. Finally, the argument brings up the issues about human beings who do not or no longer have the capacity for higher reasoning. Does Singer believe they should have fewer rights than a chicken?
2. The article references a philosophy which he himself designed which again seems to have no objective basis.
This being said, the parts of the article that I didn't mention seem to be well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.50.81 ( talk) 14:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
For the most part, I think the article sounds better without Harnad's edits. For starters, "reasons" sounds more encyclopedic than "scruples", but more importantly, many of the additions seem like original research because they are syntheses not backed up by any sources ( "In response, proponets of meat-eating..."; "Animals are incapable of making ethical choices..."; "Humans have a choice...")...wow, there were whole paragraphs added that have no sources whatsoever (and I'm a flexitarian myself). And as far as the non-neutral argument, well, linking to your own work is a pretty obvious way of showing so, Harnad. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC) |
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)