talkpolitics | It's personal and Political.

So, I first saw this as just an amusing macro.
Then I got the book in the pic as a xmas gift. I have been working my way through it. It's not a straight-up case for vegetarianism. It is written by a vegetarian--who admits as much. But from my reading of his work the authors point isn't to convert you, but to inform you and let you decide.

Now, I'm not a vegetarian. But I may become one. This book is making me pause and think.

Also I think I should say this early on: what I am discussing generally applies to the "first world". In places where food choices are not as plentiful as in the US or other industrialized and developed nations, perhaps the "choice" to eat an animal is one that is easily made as it's eat the animal or starve. So, forgive me if this doesn't exactly apply to you: I know we have an international crew here, but hear me out, if you would.

(for the sake of this post, I shall use "animals" to mean non-human animals)

We can all agree that animals have feelings, right?
Any of us who have had dogs or cats as pets know that they can feel pain, e.g. when we accidentally step on their tail, they shriek in pain and we acknowledge that. We use pain to teach our pets: if a dog does something he shouldn't we give him a thwack on the nose (not too hard of course, but enough to let him know: "don't do that!")

We imprison Micheal Vick for his dog-fights, right?

So we all agree animals can feel pain. And if you don't like my stated assumption that will not be contested in this post (looking at you, horse lover) you can ignore my post. There will not be a discussion of if animals feel pain here. It is assumed and accepted that they do.

Now, dogs aren't so different from pigs or chickens. Yes, there is a difference between them, but there's no reason to assume that pigs, turkeys, chickens and cattle don't feel pain.

Now, if you don't know, you should know that 95%+ of the meat eaten in the US is factory farmed. Now, factory farms are quite what you might imagine them to be. Gigantic "farms" that operate like a factory. The humane element has been removed and replaced with cold efficiency. If baby pigs aren't of the proper size, they will be picked up by their hind legs and have their heads smacked into the concrete floor and then tossed down a chute waiting for the truck that collects all the many pigs killed this way.

The horrors of factory farming are nearly too long to list. Not only do they morally mutilate those who must work in such factory farms, but they also cause significant health risks to humans. Factory farmed animals are fed antibiotics before they are sick--because the "farmers" (more appropriate might be: "factory owners") realize the conditions that their animals live in are so atrocious that they are *expecting* them to get sick.

Then there's the environmental damages done due to the billions of pounds of shit these animals produce. Now, usually shit can be useful as manure--right? But this shit is loaded with all sorts of crap (like antibiotics) and is created in such a quantity that it is not so great for the planet.

Then there's the fact that to produce all the meat we eat, we must feed the animals--and there are starving children who would very much like the food we give to our farmed animals. And yet, we don't. We give it to Bessie so we can have a nice big burger later.

So, I am here asking for help. Tell me, how may I order my next bacon cheeseburger without lamenting the utterly cruel treatment that my burger was built from? The expected death and suffering of factory farmed animals is documented and proven. There's an annual % of the animals *expected* to die at the farm, in transport, and an expected % of them who will not be stunned properly before being killed and an expected % of them will be improperly killed and thus suffer longer than needed. These expected percentages are such because the goal of factory farms is to make money: not to produce animal meat that comes from animals that were treated humanly. We treat our animals with no humanity--nor humanely. We speed up the process that animals are raised in by genetically mutating them. Turkeys on factory farms are *incapable* of reproducing on their own. The insanity of it all is just too much.

So yes, help me. I love my bacon cheeseburgers. They taste AMAZING.
But how can I ever order another one?

Is it as easy as:

And again: in places where meat is a needed part of the diet to fend off starvation, this doesn't apply. But in the US and Europe where factory farming is the predominant method of getting animal meat--can we really allow the cruelty to animals to continue? When we buy food at the supermarket for our BBQ aren't we really farming by proxy and thus supporting the inhumane treatment of our factory farmed animals? Do we need laws to prevent the inhumane treatment of animals? or should we all just be vegetarians and reduce the demand for meat so that the industry doesn't need to fit 5000 chickens in a space that could humanely fit 100?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Where does this "refusing to eat meat won't help" argument come from? It seems to crop up quite a bit. I am not a vegetarian at all, but clearly if you think that killing animals is wrong, or you think that the way it is commonly done is cruel, then of course refusing to eat that meat is the first step. Your argument is like saying a corrupt cop shouldn't decline bribes because it won't solve the problem of corrupt police in general, but he should join campaigns against it. That doesn't mean you are helping anything, it just makes you a hypocrite.

Key words were "significant impact"

He didn't say it woul make no impact

It makes as much of an impact as refusing to rob your neighbor's house when they're away on vacation does. It doesn't really affect society in a wider sense; should you therefore feel fine with it?

The OP was asking about feeling guilty for eating a burger. Of course if a person truly believes eating beef from a normal slaughterhouse is wrong, he/she should not do it. However, one person forgoing beef won't do anything significant to improve the plight of the animals. Getting involved, buying from humane farmers, etc., is a better use of one's energies.

It's a spectrum of thoughts and behaviors though. First you feel that eating meat is wrong, then you feel guilty about it, then you stop eating burgers, then you move on to speaking about your beliefs to those around you, and then eventually you might start getting more active with regard to actually doing something on a wider scale. It doesn't make any sense to leap straight to the last part, because that is the culmination of everything that came before it. Of course one person not eating beef won't significantly change anything, but that isn't the point: one person refusing to steal office supplies won't really change anything either, but that doesn't mean one should feel comfortable with that.

Also, on pure economical grounds, one person refusing to eat that particular kind of meat does do something. It reduces the demand for unethical meat, and the people that raise that kind of meat make less money. If enough people do that, they'll go out of business.

I realize that the point you're making is that one person can't make much of a difference with individual action and I agree, but that could be argued for any moral position that is viewed in the context of wider society (i.e., theft, murder, rape, etc.)

No, my point is that Guilt + $5 will get you a latte. Guilt is useless. Utterly, fantastically worthless.

I disagree. Guilt is your mind's way of telling you that you're in the wrong. It's a great tool to promote human morality; it can spur action.

Ah, but it's the action that's worth something.

What I see in this thread is "oh, I feel so guilty eating meat ... nom nom nom." That feeling is worth nothing unless it leads to action. So I say, if you're not going to change, don't bother feeling guilty. Does that make any sense?

So many people I know seem to think that FEELING something -- love, guilt, sympathy, etc. -- excuses them from having to take action. "I love my kids, even though I put them in daycare and only spend a few minutes a day interacting with them. I love my spouse, even though I make his/her life hell. I feel guilty, so that makes me a good person even though I continue to do the things that I know are wrong."

The answer to the OP's question of "should I feel guilty" is no. Either eat without remorse or don't eat. I couldn't care less.

OK, I suppose that I do agree with that viewpoint. Feeling is not a replacement for action, you're right. But I see the OP as more in the middle state though, where he is questioning and searching for a resolution to his guilt. He can do this either by deciding that there is no legitimate reason to eat factory-farmed meat, or he can come to the conclusion through discussion (or some might say rationalization) that it isn't so bad after all. In either case, guilt spurred him to consider the issue more deeply, which is valuable in and of itself. It could even cause him to take action that is (perceived to be) more ethical. That is what I mean when I say guilt is useful.

It's personal and Political.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject