I have developed what I believe is an ethical argument for consuming

you're going too deep bro
just eat the fucking hamburguer

I, personally, have never felt the need to justify the consumption of animal products.

Are you sure you're not vegan?

>>7569252

Have you ever killed an animal?

I grew up on a farm with goats, pigs, chickens, and cows. When I killed them, I thought "How do I justify this?"

>>7569226
I see your point and agree with you to an extent, but when you look at how the majority of these animals are reared, it becomes clear that there is no way they find any pleasure in their miserable existences. Perhaps grass fed cows that are able to graze outside can live a pleasurable life before their inevitable slaughter, but can you really expect an animal who spends its entire life in a cage barely large enough to fit in and is force fed corn, a product cows are unable to properly process, to be happy?

>>7569284

I won't deny that unnecessarily inhumane treatment of animals exists, but I've been involved with a few big cattle auctions and my understanding of this industry is the vast majority of beef is bought from smaller farmers and manufactured by a separate entity. The factory-farm horror stories are much exaggerated in scope.

I also know that if you try hard enough, you can find where the products you buy come from and choose what to buy accordingly.

>>7569226
Why did you write all that? Everybody is familiar with the idea. This is like standard argument #3, after "humans were designed to eat meat" and "but you're killing the poor plants too."

Your argument is instantly destroyed by the premise this wouldn't be an issue if the cattle industry wasn't even a thing to begin with

And no, it's not as simple as not consuming them that they will die out, that's not how it works at all

>>7569344

>this wouldn't be an issue if the cattle industry wasn't even a thing to begin with

I don't think that destroys my argument at all.

>And no, it's not as simple as not consuming them that they will die out, that's not how it works at all

Generally, domesticated animals cannot survive in the wild. I guess you are correct to an extent, though. If pig farmers released all of their pigs into the wild the local ecosystems would be completely ravaged by them.

Cows and chickens? Just based from what I've experienced from them, I'm thinking survival probability is really really low. When's the last time you saw wild cows and chickens?

>>7569276
Yeah, I thought "damn, this is gonna taste good"

>>7569226
Yeah but what's your ethical argument in relation to fucking them?

>>7569226
This is a shitty defense of omnivorism. The easiest and best defense is 'tradition.' We honor the traditions of our ancestors when we consume meat. We honor their ingenuity when we consume domesticated animals.

Why do we speak English? Tradition.
Why do we practice monogamy? Tradition.
Why do we practice agriculture? Tradition.
Why do we have funerals? Tradition.

Traditions contain wisdom that escape explanation (except in evolutionary terms) and are often worth keeping due to their success. If another, more successful tradition comes along, humanity will switch over.

Perhaps vegetarianism or veganism is a better alternative. Perhaps. But the jury is still out. Let's see what happens with time.

An appeal to tradition is the best defense of omnivorism. It has several advantages:
- Vegans are also traditionalists in some ways, either in language, customs, opinions, and ideals.
- It connects well with evolutionary science.
- It is not intractable. It requires enough evidence before a change is made.
- It keeps one from going into the other idiotic arguments about animal life and muh feels and other such shite.

>>7569689
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANUoAdXfA60

not siding just providing

>>7569226
i have a question, what if we discovered another species in a distant planet and managed to actually bring some here but they wherent evolved like us. Would it be ok to raise them and consume them? would they still be ayyliens if they were raised here? would they be animals instead?

File: figure-2-1.png (43KB, 582x515px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 582x515px

>>7569226
>I believe that it is better to live and sometimes suffer, than to never even exist at all

Logically, that may or may not be true, but you are welcome to believe it.

By that logic, you could give birth to a child, brutally torture them every day till thier death, and then claim it was better than not birthing them at all

Basically, just eat the Burger if you feel you should

>>7569689

I vigorously disagree. Not only do I disagree that Tradition is not necessarily linked to ethics, I also disagree that any of the examples of tradition that you listed are actually traditions rather than beneficial arrangements that many traditions around the world have in common because they are beneficial, not because they are traditional.

In short I believe that the idea of doing anything that can be displayed as unethical and dismissing any argument about it because of "tradition" is an argument that does not hold merit.

>>7569722
Decent video.

Vegetarianism is likely better for the environment. But it doesn't have the longevity of omnivorism as there are very few historically vegetarian societies and the ones that exist (e.g., in India) rely on a rigid caste system to support their lifestyle which should be objectionable to most vegetarians concerned with ethics.

The simplest and most effective response to vegan or vegetarian propoganda is to go for the human factor. Tradition is a very human factor.

Similarly, group identity and tradition is another human factor that can be leveraged to buttress the argument for omnivorism. Just point to black, latino, and asian cultures and their consumption of meat and point out that asking them to give it up would require that they forgo their tradition or culture.

File: 049596.jpg (27KB, 400x627px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x627px

>>7569226
>I believe that it is better to live and sometimes suffer, than to never even exist at all

nope nope nope all of my nope

>>7569783

You've misrepresented my "logic". I didn't mean to imply that being excessively and continuously "brutally tortured" was better than non-existence, although it might be.

At the very least I can admit that I am against continuous and unnecessary torturing of livestock. This is not always the case, however, and I don't believe it is even the most common treatment of livestock by a wide margin. I see this as a separate issue, however, since whatever harsh treatment some livestock might receive, it does not disprove that animal products can be ethically consumed.

>>7569802
There is no one single system of ethics. In fact, one of the prevalent trends in groups highly concerned with ethics today is the preservation of tradition - especially the tradition of underprivileged groups.

To say that your ethics trumps my tradition is not a straightforward argument. It's an even more difficult argument if I can show that my 'tradition' derives from a oppressed group.

Basically, you and other progressive types want me to play the game within your conception of ethics. Instead, I refuse to play and invite you to play the game on the turf of tradition.

If I choose to play on your ethical turf, I have to either lambast your ethics or come up with some argument as OP or others have done to defend omnivorism as ethical. If I can push the argument on to the turf of tradition, I can get you to blast tradition (which can be unwise depending on which group's tradition you deride) or get you to disagree with tradition but to do it from an evolutionary or pragmatic perspective. And if you are successful at this, I am not compelled to act right away. I can always take a 'wait and see' approach.

The ethical argument, on the other hand, compels me to act right away.

It's a matter of language games. If I let you choose the game, I lose. If I get to choose it, I win.

>>7569814

We're not all nihilists.

>>7569812
I don't see how the caste system supports a vegetarian lifestyle, though I do know that Indians are eating more meat now that there is greater/cheaper access to it. Poorer societies in general eat less meat.

Your argument for tradition is very strong, but what about the constant appropriation and changing of culture that happens inter-generationally? For instance, in America due to the great depression and the world wars, people ate a lot of canned and preserved or cheaply made foodstuffs. Now that we are both in a relative time of abundance and know those to be less favourable to health the way Americans eat is changing.

There is also the constant change due to health fads and what have you. Tradition remains, but changes over time. A gradual shift to vegetarianism is absolutely attainable without upsetting the grandparents, and in fact I would argue that most traditional dishes have some silly vegetarian or vegan equivalent.

>>7569845
>conflating antinatalism with nihilism
Want to guess how I know you don't read?

>>7569839
Take note of the image I posted. Even so, you are basing a logical argument on your belief, which by definition is something that you accept is true regardless.

If you choose to provethat it is better to live and sometimes suffer, than to never even exist at all, you're going down a very long road.

Anyways its better that you listen to this guy >>7569842 and eat the burger.

File: image.png (302KB, 363x321px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 363x321px

>>7569226
I've basically come to the same conclusion, but to that I've added that while the animals are alive, they actually have it pretty damn comfy compared to their wild brethren. They are given a constant supply of food and water, are given shelter from the elements and predators, and recieve veterinary care. The breeding animals among them have harem-level access to mates. And when all is said and done, they are killed swiftly and relatively painlessly. If you're an animal that has no conception of freedom or concerns about your corpse being divided, frozen, and shipped to be eaten, it's a pretty sweet deal. That I think is the essential justification for our keeping of livestock.

>>7569862
The Indian caste that was vegetarian was the uppermost caste, the priestly caste. They did not have to engage in manual labor, nor in warfare, nor in mercantilism, as these duties were taken over by other castes. Thus, they lived a fairly sedentary lifestyle (compared to the other castes) and lived off the production and defense provided by the other castes.

That is not the case today, but their vegetarianism was afforded by dictating what the other castes ought to do.

I agree that what we consider tradition is in flux. We also choose and discard traditions as they suit us. Thus, I don't dispute that we may gradually shift to vegetarianism. The vegan alternatives for traditional dishes are pretty good too.

However, my argument is not aimed at preserving omnivorism in perpetuity. My aim is to preserve it for a few generations as it may be wise to do so due to unforseen circumstances and for culinary reasons. We will very likely come to use lab-grown tissues instead of live animals in our food in a few generations which would reduce, if not remove, the ethical and environmental concerns about meat consumption.

I think the culinary traditions we have are worth passing on to future generations. And we may never see decent substitutes for some animal parts such as blood, liver, lungs, hocks, etc.

My stance comes from a realization that the vegan/vegetarian position is ethically superior but not pragmatically superior when tradition is considered. To argue from ethics for omnivorism is to fight a losing battle. But only because one has chose the wrong battlefield.

>>7569226
Your idea isn't new. Also, it's a shitty excuse and doesn't make eating animals 'ethical'. If human intervention was truly a problem, then we could simply raise them and not turn them into food. We could treat them like dogs and cats, raising them and letting them live decent lives. But that's only if the animals would actually go extinct.

Look at pigs. Just a couple generations in the wild and they're already suited for the life style. The amount of evolution that has took place with our livestock is very small and it wouldn't take long at all for them to revert back to their more natural state. The problem would be where to make room for the animals in the wild, but I'm sure people would figure something out.

>>7569870

I did take note at your image. It's a foolish attempt to apply logic to what is admittedly a subjective statement. You'll notice I put "Logic" in quotes because I never claimed to be making a logical argument.

Of course life experience is subjective. Who decided that no pleasure is not bad? Is all pain bad? I think pain can be good sometimes. Or even simultaneously good and bad.

And this guy? >>7569842

I should listen to the guy suggesting playing the race card is going to help me feel ethically justified in consuming animals?

>>7569932

> then we could simply raise them and not turn them into food. We could treat them like dogs and cats, raising them and letting them live decent lives

A nice sentiment, but naive.

>Look at pigs. Just a couple generations in the wild and they're already suited for the life style.

I'm pretty sure it would be disastrous for ecosystems all over the planet if we released the billions of pigs being kept for consumption into the wild. There are worse things than a species going extinct.

>>7569933
>I should listen to the guy suggesting playing the race card is going to help me feel ethically justified in consuming animals?

I'm not making an ethical argument.

I'm making two arguments. The first is the argument from tradition which a legitimate argument and one which applies to your opponent as well. The customs we have, including the boundaries and rules for the argument you and your opponent are engaging in, are based in tradition. You may think it's the race card but it also applies to traditions such as heterosexual marriage, monogamy, etc.

The second argument is a pragmatic one which claims that there is value in preserving culinary and dietary traditions. The former is worth preserving in the same way as art - it is to be defended as being of value in the eye of the beholder or the tongue of the taster. The latter is worth preserving as a practically matter because the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. And when messing with food sources, a high level of care is never too much.

If you want to find an ethical argument for meat consumption, you won't find it. Every argument I've come across is easily refuted as we're seeing in this thread.

>>7569245

dude this

>>7569276

we're smarter than them and can therefore develop mechanisms by which to become stronger than them?

all the justification we need

>>7570049
All the justification a mindless animal needs. I can see how it's enough for someone like you.

>>7570080

>defaults to personal attacks

yeah sure mindless, me, good point bro

sorry (not sorry kekkles) but i don't have sympathy for animals that aren't human beins

>>7570091
To be fair, your justification wasn't exactly well thought out.