Unfortunately, it is likely that in the future , our descendants will see this practice with the same horror we look at slavery in the past, and tell themselves "If I were in their shoes, I would have done something"
What’s your take on eating humanely raised beef. Seems positive for a couple reasons to me: you help fund a seemingly good life for a cow, support local farms, and you get tasty meat. I am currently a vegetarian but am considering finding a local farm to buy from.
Assuming you did find such a source: I don't know of any meat eater who consumes such meat and abstains from factory farmed meat. I would like to know if there is research on whether beginning to consume humanely raised meat correlates with beginning to consume factory farmed meat, but anecdotally I find this to be the case. I myself was vegan and began consuming humane eggs from Vital Farms, which in principle I don't object to. But I'm now (largely) indiscriminately vegetarian beginning from that habit.
That's my personal reason for not purchasing humane grass-fed beef, though I find the arguments from "burger veganism" pretty reasonable in principle.
We need to EDUCATE people, not try to ban things for 'people's own good.' Sadly, the attitude of most is to ban..meanwhile, I am convinced that in 20 years all the fake meat, which is so heavily manipulated with chemical processes, flavors, etc., will be found to be toxic.
I think the ordinary sense of the word "murder" is something like "the unjust killing of one or more persons by one or more other persons." The Nazis were murderers because they were persons who unjustly killed other persons. The same is true of Ender: the aliens he kills are persons, just like him (assuming I'm remembering the plot of Ender's Game correctly). But the ordinary usage clearly doesn't include the killing of non-persons. If I told you my friend Todd was a murderer, and then it turns out that his victim was a pigeon, you'd (rightly) feel that I'd deceived you. The same is true when a non-person kills a person: if Todd gets eaten by a lion, he won't have been "murdered."
Of course, I agree that factory farms are hideously immoral, and that people shouldn't buy things produced on them. But I don't think what occurs on factory farms is murder, and I don't think one has to embrace a non-standard or pedantic use of the word in order to draw that conclusion. And the distinction seems morally relevant to me: killing a person is significantly morally worse than killing a non-person (though I don't expect you to necessarily agree with that).
I think a person is a member of a rational kind, and I'm an Aristotelian essentialist about natural kinds, so I think there are hard boundaries here. I recognize that those are very controversial views, of course (though I actually think considerations about killing provide reason to accept them).
I think that the most coherent philosophical theories of personhood would clearly class many nonhuman animals as persons (or "containing", being "attached to", etc persons, in the same way human organisms are). I'll definitely grant your pragmatic judgment about hearing someone described as a "murderer" and learning that the victim was a pigeon, but this can easily be understood as a prototype-periphery anomaly, like hearing about a box of "tools" and then finding out they were pencils or spoons.
I believe that factory farming is a horrific and sickening evil.
However, I think it is a jump to go from there to thinking that eating any kind of meat is unacceptable. Eating animals that are treated well, have happy lives, and are killed humanely seems to me to be a different category.
Obviously if all meat eaten was from this other category there would have to be a massive reduction in the amount of meat consumed. If there was such a thing "ethical meat" would you eat it? Why, or why not?
Yes, I realised that when I read your article. However the title "meat is murder" wasn't quite so specific. You seem a very clear thinker, and this is an issue I have recently started thinking about so I was genuinely interested in your opinion. I have asked you once before on a previous article and didn't get a response so I thought it was worth another try. However now that you have responded I feel it would be rude of me to push you any further on this.
I’m not sure if that’s actually an unreasonable jump to make (even though the article doesn’t go there).
There’s an argument put forward by Tristram McPherson that attempts to make this jump (to some degree).
1. It’s wrong to cause intense pain to animals
2. If it’s wrong to cause intense pain to animals, then it’s also wrong to kill them (at least for some other sake than themselves).
C. So, it’s wrong to kill animals
And he goes on to defend the 2nd premise with a thought experiment. Imagine that there is a cow who requires urgent medical attention and the only way to save their life is by performing surgery on them. However the veterinarian cannot knock them unconscious, nor do they have any way to numb the pain if they decided to perform surgery.
Despite the fact that performing the surgery would be immensely painful, it seems at least permissible to perform the surgery to save the cow’s life.
McPherson also points out that the cow would then go on to lead a good life. And he thinks this arguments supports the notion that taking the life of this animal is morally wrong (at least) because it would rob them of a valuable future.
interesting, but perhaps I should read the whole argument because I still dont see how 2b follows from 2a, ie yes I agree its wrong to cause intense pain to animals, but I'm undecided on whether it is wrong to kill them in a painless manner, or to eat them if they died of natural causes after a long and happy life.
However when I was thinking of "ethical meat" I was also thinking of things like this:
I would be much happier eating something like that then even something that involved the painless death of an animal. But some may still consider it wrong because it contains animal tissue, which is a position I also respect.
McPherson introduces the argument in two places (to my knowledge). 1 in a paper that I will provide the link for (see half way down page three of the document), and 2 in a book by the name of "Philosophy comes to dinner". From memory I think they are the same in each. I think he can do a better job than me putting the argument forward.
In my own view, I do think it's wrong to kill (at least for some other sake than themselves) animals painlessly. One thought experiment that I could draw upon is that of a very heavy person crushing birds that happened to be on the footpath, instead of just taking a step to the right. And since the person is super heavy, they instantly crush the birds, and supposing the birds don't see it coming, it's clear its a painless and stressless death–yet there seems something wrong with his action.
Though I must admit that when it comes to things like eating meat and/or purchasing meat (or just any animal products) it will require a little more work since it's not clear that those practices entail things like wronging animals–at least without further explanation. For example, perhaps we owe various treatments to the dead and that eating meat wrongs the dead individual (or something like that). I'm also confident that some sort of consumer ethic exists, but I'm not sure how to cash it out yet.
On animal tissue however there may be some important distinctions, i.e. tissue taken from an animal (i.e. those who have been killed for meat) vs tissue grown in a lab without exploiting actual animals. It may be true that cultivating such tissue for the use of consumption may be wrong, but it's not clear that if the first instance is wrong, that the second must also be wrong (if someone were to argue for that).
In my own view, I lean towards the idea that ethical meat cannot exist, or at the very least, that ethical meat cannot exist, but that tissues grown in a lab without animal exploitation isn't actually "meat" in the relevant sense (i.e. tissue that was part of someone's actual body).
I've also written about what we might owe to animals if they have a certain sense of moral value on my own substack if you're interested.
Thanks for the link! I was going to search for it tonight so that is much appreciated. I like your bird argument as I also find the idea of killing for pleasure abhorrent.
I'm making major changes to my diet at the moment for various medical reasons that I won't bore you with, and I also find arguments about reducing meat consumption because of its environmental impact persuasive. But aside from obviously being opposed to animal cruelty I haven't thought seriously about the ethical issues involved so this is very timely for me. I will check out your substack tonight. Shalom.
It's the reason I believe in regenerative farming--I don't think it's murder to kill animals for food, but I don't agree with the methods used in factory farming during the lifetimes of the animal. Humans are omnivores--we are made to consume meat....but we need to be honorable about how we treat the animals.
This article is pointless. People barely pretend to not care about animals for rational reasons, so no amount of rational argumentation will convince them.
I suppose nothing will convince them! We should never discuss veganism ever again, because the breath could be better spent on the anthropic argument for God, which will no doubt change many minds
I've documented the details quite exclusively,. https://benthams.substack.com/p/weve-created-hell-its-called-factory. The sentence I gave about slavery was "Slave owners did not care about the slaves they beat and killed, yet this was not a justification for slavery." Are you denying that slaves were beat and killed?
Well I've now provided extensive documentation of the claim you dispute.
Lots of people seem to demean Christian morality by just thinking that it's any morality that cares about other people who are vulnerable. If that's what people mean by Christian morailty, then I'll take being a Chrsitian moralist.
I would be interested in any evidence supporting your claim that it's not like that at all that things happen in factory farms - especially if it takes into account all the elements put forward in the post Bentham's linked to.
Just by reading your comment, I have no way of knowing if you actually have a lot of data or if the factory farm you grew up into is just different from what happens in most cases.
I fear that the comment you left is not going to convince people without evidence.
Unfortunately, it is likely that in the future , our descendants will see this practice with the same horror we look at slavery in the past, and tell themselves "If I were in their shoes, I would have done something"
What’s your take on eating humanely raised beef. Seems positive for a couple reasons to me: you help fund a seemingly good life for a cow, support local farms, and you get tasty meat. I am currently a vegetarian but am considering finding a local farm to buy from.
Assuming you did find such a source: I don't know of any meat eater who consumes such meat and abstains from factory farmed meat. I would like to know if there is research on whether beginning to consume humanely raised meat correlates with beginning to consume factory farmed meat, but anecdotally I find this to be the case. I myself was vegan and began consuming humane eggs from Vital Farms, which in principle I don't object to. But I'm now (largely) indiscriminately vegetarian beginning from that habit.
That's my personal reason for not purchasing humane grass-fed beef, though I find the arguments from "burger veganism" pretty reasonable in principle.
I only eat grass fed, pasture raised meat and chicken...I'd rather eat less of the right kind of meat.
This is encouraging! Super rare attitude unfortunately.
We need to EDUCATE people, not try to ban things for 'people's own good.' Sadly, the attitude of most is to ban..meanwhile, I am convinced that in 20 years all the fake meat, which is so heavily manipulated with chemical processes, flavors, etc., will be found to be toxic.
I think the ordinary sense of the word "murder" is something like "the unjust killing of one or more persons by one or more other persons." The Nazis were murderers because they were persons who unjustly killed other persons. The same is true of Ender: the aliens he kills are persons, just like him (assuming I'm remembering the plot of Ender's Game correctly). But the ordinary usage clearly doesn't include the killing of non-persons. If I told you my friend Todd was a murderer, and then it turns out that his victim was a pigeon, you'd (rightly) feel that I'd deceived you. The same is true when a non-person kills a person: if Todd gets eaten by a lion, he won't have been "murdered."
Of course, I agree that factory farms are hideously immoral, and that people shouldn't buy things produced on them. But I don't think what occurs on factory farms is murder, and I don't think one has to embrace a non-standard or pedantic use of the word in order to draw that conclusion. And the distinction seems morally relevant to me: killing a person is significantly morally worse than killing a non-person (though I don't expect you to necessarily agree with that).
I think the argument from marginal cases shows that you can't consistently maintain both:
1) killing a human for no reason is murder
2) its only murder if a person kills a person
I think a person is a member of a rational kind, and I'm an Aristotelian essentialist about natural kinds, so I think there are hard boundaries here. I recognize that those are very controversial views, of course (though I actually think considerations about killing provide reason to accept them).
I think that the most coherent philosophical theories of personhood would clearly class many nonhuman animals as persons (or "containing", being "attached to", etc persons, in the same way human organisms are). I'll definitely grant your pragmatic judgment about hearing someone described as a "murderer" and learning that the victim was a pigeon, but this can easily be understood as a prototype-periphery anomaly, like hearing about a box of "tools" and then finding out they were pencils or spoons.
There is as much falseness to this article as there is truth. Too much religiousity to waste time correcting.
This is a helpful comment.
I believe that factory farming is a horrific and sickening evil.
However, I think it is a jump to go from there to thinking that eating any kind of meat is unacceptable. Eating animals that are treated well, have happy lives, and are killed humanely seems to me to be a different category.
Obviously if all meat eaten was from this other category there would have to be a massive reduction in the amount of meat consumed. If there was such a thing "ethical meat" would you eat it? Why, or why not?
In this article I was talking about factory famed meat
Yes, I realised that when I read your article. However the title "meat is murder" wasn't quite so specific. You seem a very clear thinker, and this is an issue I have recently started thinking about so I was genuinely interested in your opinion. I have asked you once before on a previous article and didn't get a response so I thought it was worth another try. However now that you have responded I feel it would be rude of me to push you any further on this.
I’ve written a bit about this elsewhere
https://benthams.substack.com/p/against-eating-happy-animals
I’m not sure if that’s actually an unreasonable jump to make (even though the article doesn’t go there).
There’s an argument put forward by Tristram McPherson that attempts to make this jump (to some degree).
1. It’s wrong to cause intense pain to animals
2. If it’s wrong to cause intense pain to animals, then it’s also wrong to kill them (at least for some other sake than themselves).
C. So, it’s wrong to kill animals
And he goes on to defend the 2nd premise with a thought experiment. Imagine that there is a cow who requires urgent medical attention and the only way to save their life is by performing surgery on them. However the veterinarian cannot knock them unconscious, nor do they have any way to numb the pain if they decided to perform surgery.
Despite the fact that performing the surgery would be immensely painful, it seems at least permissible to perform the surgery to save the cow’s life.
McPherson also points out that the cow would then go on to lead a good life. And he thinks this arguments supports the notion that taking the life of this animal is morally wrong (at least) because it would rob them of a valuable future.
interesting, but perhaps I should read the whole argument because I still dont see how 2b follows from 2a, ie yes I agree its wrong to cause intense pain to animals, but I'm undecided on whether it is wrong to kill them in a painless manner, or to eat them if they died of natural causes after a long and happy life.
However when I was thinking of "ethical meat" I was also thinking of things like this:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2024.01.015
I would be much happier eating something like that then even something that involved the painless death of an animal. But some may still consider it wrong because it contains animal tissue, which is a position I also respect.
McPherson introduces the argument in two places (to my knowledge). 1 in a paper that I will provide the link for (see half way down page three of the document), and 2 in a book by the name of "Philosophy comes to dinner". From memory I think they are the same in each. I think he can do a better job than me putting the argument forward.
Link: https://philarchive.org/archive/MCPHTA
In my own view, I do think it's wrong to kill (at least for some other sake than themselves) animals painlessly. One thought experiment that I could draw upon is that of a very heavy person crushing birds that happened to be on the footpath, instead of just taking a step to the right. And since the person is super heavy, they instantly crush the birds, and supposing the birds don't see it coming, it's clear its a painless and stressless death–yet there seems something wrong with his action.
Though I must admit that when it comes to things like eating meat and/or purchasing meat (or just any animal products) it will require a little more work since it's not clear that those practices entail things like wronging animals–at least without further explanation. For example, perhaps we owe various treatments to the dead and that eating meat wrongs the dead individual (or something like that). I'm also confident that some sort of consumer ethic exists, but I'm not sure how to cash it out yet.
On animal tissue however there may be some important distinctions, i.e. tissue taken from an animal (i.e. those who have been killed for meat) vs tissue grown in a lab without exploiting actual animals. It may be true that cultivating such tissue for the use of consumption may be wrong, but it's not clear that if the first instance is wrong, that the second must also be wrong (if someone were to argue for that).
In my own view, I lean towards the idea that ethical meat cannot exist, or at the very least, that ethical meat cannot exist, but that tissues grown in a lab without animal exploitation isn't actually "meat" in the relevant sense (i.e. tissue that was part of someone's actual body).
I've also written about what we might owe to animals if they have a certain sense of moral value on my own substack if you're interested.
Thanks for the link! I was going to search for it tonight so that is much appreciated. I like your bird argument as I also find the idea of killing for pleasure abhorrent.
I'm making major changes to my diet at the moment for various medical reasons that I won't bore you with, and I also find arguments about reducing meat consumption because of its environmental impact persuasive. But aside from obviously being opposed to animal cruelty I haven't thought seriously about the ethical issues involved so this is very timely for me. I will check out your substack tonight. Shalom.
No worries at all. Thanks for the conversation.
What's your view on the use of animals in science?
Generally opposed
gotcha, good answer:)
It's the reason I believe in regenerative farming--I don't think it's murder to kill animals for food, but I don't agree with the methods used in factory farming during the lifetimes of the animal. Humans are omnivores--we are made to consume meat....but we need to be honorable about how we treat the animals.
have you read this: https://philpapers.org/archive/ISACYC.pdf
No, but I’ve read similar arguments from others eg norcross
That Norcross essay was *literally* life changing for me.
What is your view on the ethics of factory-farmed dairy?
It’s bad
This article is pointless. People barely pretend to not care about animals for rational reasons, so no amount of rational argumentation will convince them.
Personally I found it fascinating, and very timely for me. Your milage may vary of course.
I suppose nothing will convince them! We should never discuss veganism ever again, because the breath could be better spent on the anthropic argument for God, which will no doubt change many minds
No. That’s not correct either.
I've documented the details quite exclusively,. https://benthams.substack.com/p/weve-created-hell-its-called-factory. The sentence I gave about slavery was "Slave owners did not care about the slaves they beat and killed, yet this was not a justification for slavery." Are you denying that slaves were beat and killed?
Well I've now provided extensive documentation of the claim you dispute.
Lots of people seem to demean Christian morality by just thinking that it's any morality that cares about other people who are vulnerable. If that's what people mean by Christian morailty, then I'll take being a Chrsitian moralist.
I would be interested in any evidence supporting your claim that it's not like that at all that things happen in factory farms - especially if it takes into account all the elements put forward in the post Bentham's linked to.
Just by reading your comment, I have no way of knowing if you actually have a lot of data or if the factory farm you grew up into is just different from what happens in most cases.
I fear that the comment you left is not going to convince people without evidence.