More Meat?

Following up Stuart's responses here and here.

Firstly I would like to admit that I am not widely read on the subject. I would like to read a couple of books from the strongest arguments on both sides. But... before I do that, it probably makes sense to come up with a list of questions I am trying to answer. Independent thoughts. So, discussing the arguments with Stuart from both sides makes sense as a starting point.


1. There are some animals that even an omnivore will not eat. Why?

This varies by omnivore.

2. There must be some level of cruelty to which each of us would object.

The thought of a calf not being allowed to walk so that it doesn't grow muscles seems excessively cruel to me. Hence my choice of not eating veal. It is an easy choice since veal was not a large part of my diet, although it is very tasty. I don't try convince other people, and if I went out to dinner and veal had been prepared by my host, I would most likely eat it.

3. We need a definition of moral status.

4. I agree with what you say. A right can be independent of an obligation if it is not possible or realistic to place an obligation on someone or something. But then there needs to be a different sent of rules of why those rights should exist, other than... because I don't want that to happen to me. Because then the right is being confered rather than given in exchange for an obligation.

5. I think acting the same as nature is the default. If a compelling argument or even sufficient to give an injunction (how would you say this better Greg?) is found, then you can stop people from acting in that way. No, I don't think vegetarians are immoral by refusing to eat meat. It can be frustrating in a social context but there are lots of people with other dietary constraints so that is not an issue in my mind. (I still find aggressive vegetarians annoying but we have agreed not to go there)

6. I don't think vegetarians cause more suffering than omnivores (? is there a better term than omnivores or are vegetarians herbivores?).

7. If the animal rights people were wrong and succeeded... this could cause harm depending on how you look at it. There will be far less cows, pigs, chickens, goats etc. available other than those kept for milk (assuming that is ok) and zoos. Take you great grandchild to visit a wild zoo cow.... this could be seen as bad? From a balanced diet perspective... it may be unhealthy for us to exclude meat from our diet. The emotional trauma caused by unfounded guilt. Can you think of some examples Stu?

8. If meat eaters are wrong, we will have left a trail of suffering. This is not good. We already leave a trail of suffering. William Wallace... freedom fighter and rapist. Harry Truman, ended a war and was a war criminal. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Shaka, Henry VIII, Verwoed... everyone has a shaddy past that we try to evolve from. Evolution should be without shame if convincing arguments come up, learn from the past but don't feel ashamed if you learnt and changed. On the other hand, if the arguments were there and you just ignored them till it was convenient, then there should probably be some shame. I am 80% confident (for non Mutt-Blog readers, Stu likes attaching a % to every belief) that eating meat is not a problem in itself. I am uncertain as to where I would draw the line as to what meat is wrong to eat given the cruelty in obtaining it.

I am satisfied with my default of eating meat also because I enjoy it. Meat tastes good. If the belief that what I am doing decrease that enjoyment, I will eat less. If it decreases it to the point where I dislike eating meat... I will stop.