Should it be illegal to kill animals for food?

[greenforest32]

Seems like the underlying question from this thread: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=152673.0

[dialectical fetishist]

Amoral/Legal

[Communists For McCain]

Amoral/Legal

This.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Amoral/Legal

This.

[Redalgo]

None of these options are suitable for my outlook on the matter, which is that life forms should be treated according to their respective qualities of personhood. I believe it would be amoral - and should be legal - to prey on the most basic living things. And yet to me there eventually comes a point beyond which harming a critter unnecessarily becomes immoral and ought not to be illegal.

I would need a lot of input from scientists to decide which living things ought to have which rights.

[opebo]

It would be far more cruel to eat them whilst still living, which is the only alternative I can imagine.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Amoral/Legal

This.

[dead0man]

Amoral/Legal

This.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Amoral/Legal

This.

[Redalgo]

Wow, I didn't realize how many left-leaning folk only apply humanist principles within speciesist moral parameters. Maybe I'm quite a bit more radical in perspective than my PM score suggests.

[dialectical fetishist]

Wow, I didn't realize how many left-leaning folk only apply humanist principles within speciesist moral parameters. Maybe I'm quite a bit more radical in perspective than my PM score suggests.

I disappoint myself, but giving up meat would be too difficult

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Wow, I didn't realize how many left-leaning folk only apply humanist principles within speciesist moral parameters. Maybe I'm quite a bit more radical in perspective than my PM score suggests.

Humanist principles are, quite obviously, for humans.

[Redalgo]

Wow, I didn't realize how many left-leaning folk only apply humanist principles within speciesist moral parameters. Maybe I'm quite a bit more radical in perspective than my PM score suggests.

Humanist principles are, quite obviously, for humans.

I used the term humanist instead of personist since the latter is not one most people are familiar with. It is tolerable if folks prefer to apply its prescriptions only to human beings but I figure such a stance is anti-egalitarian in its implication that a human in-group should dominate and also exploit subordinate animal out-groups irrespective of their interests and sophistication of mental faculties.

[Senator Sbane]

Well, certain animals do exploit other animals for food. The difference with humans might be that we are capable of not eating meat and surviving. This is different from other omnivores in the wild, or even our ancestors, since we have the resources to get the right amount of nutrients through a diversity and abundance of plant sources. In the wild, someone might not have that luxury. Thus, is it really moral for us to kill animals? I still go with amoral since obviously not everyone will have the resources to make that happen and sometimes someone might need a micronutrient they need from small amounts of meat and we can't say they are immoral for keeping themselves healthy. Moreover, if we ate more plants and less animals, we would become more sustainable as a species. We would increase our carrying capacity by making this simple change.

[Yelnoc]

How is killing animals for food amoral?  If they were a) carnivorous and b) hungry they would kill you.  It's not like we're talking about hunting a species to extinction.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

Moral/Legal

[shua]

Amoral means without any moral content or implications whatsoever.  I can't agree that it applies here.  You would have to posit that the value of animal life is exactly zero for that to be the case.  

Killing for food is morally problematic, ambiguous, circumstantial.  That's not to say it is immoral, but I believe that if you are going to kill an animal for food, you should have a reason for doing it as opposed to seeking another food source, and that reason will be morally significant. In a lot of places and times in human experience, meat has been necessary for human health and prosperity.  That may be true for some people today in our society as well, but its not necessary for many people today, and in such cases to abstain from meat is morally positive.  It should not be illegal because the government is not capable of making the decisions about the needs of each person.

I think sometimes that killing for food might be better than relying on others to kill your food, since you are more aware of the reality of what you are eating and its cost.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Wow, I didn't realize how many left-leaning folk only apply humanist principles within speciesist moral parameters. Maybe I'm quite a bit more radical in perspective than my PM score suggests.

Humanist principles are, quite obviously, for humans.

I used the term humanist instead of personist since the latter is not one most people are familiar with. It is tolerable if folks prefer to apply its prescriptions only to human beings but I figure such a stance is anti-egalitarian in its implication that a human in-group should dominate and also exploit subordinate animal out-groups irrespective of their interests and sophistication of mental faculties.

Of course it's anti-egalitarian. Why in the world should humans and non-humans be treated the same way ? It would be quite an insult to humanity.

[politicus]

Moral/legal

[afleitch]

It’s entirely ‘moral’ to kill animals for food. Those who consider it immoral or amoral need to give consideration to our other food source; plants. You’re still killing a plant when you tear it from the ground and eat it. You cannot feed 7+billion people on plants alone (or synthesised funghi); we simply don’t have the arable land available or the irrigation required. The only way to feed the world without killing animals is to lower the human population artificially so that we can be sustained. And you all know what that means and that would be immoral. Of course all the animals we breed for food would be a drain on land and resources. So they too would have to be culled as if they were left to their own devices would damage vegetation as we have done away with natural predators in agricultural societies in order to protect livestock.

[Senator Sbane]

You do realize animals have to be fed as well, don't you? All that land used to grow grains for animals could be used to feed humans. And all the water used to grow animal feed, and given to animals in factory farms could be used for agriculture and other human needs. We pump into animals way more than we get out. That is basic biology. We would be able to feed more people if we didn't eat animals.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Wow, I didn't realize how many left-leaning folk only apply humanist principles within speciesist moral parameters. Maybe I'm quite a bit more radical in perspective than my PM score suggests.

Humanist principles are, quite obviously, for humans.

I used the term humanist instead of personist since the latter is not one most people are familiar with. It is tolerable if folks prefer to apply its prescriptions only to human beings but I figure such a stance is anti-egalitarian in its implication that a human in-group should dominate and also exploit subordinate animal out-groups irrespective of their interests and sophistication of mental faculties.

Who said anything about not taking mental faculties into account? "Personism" would only apply to people. Obviously when most of us think about killing animals for food we're thinking about animals with lower intelligence than humans, or in other words beings we don't consider to be people. I imagine if cows started talking and holding intelligent conversations our answer in regards to cows would be different.

[Redalgo]

Of course it's anti-egalitarian. Why in the world should humans and non-humans be treated the same way ? It would be quite an insult to humanity.

It depends on how one opts to frame the issue. I do not support all species having the same rights since we possess limited quantities of resources to work with and they have inherently differing attributes. The inequalities dividing individuals of varied species are markedly greater than those dividing individuals within any given species. As I mentioned before, what I favor is extending social rights to all members of each species (including our own) in accordance to their typical mental faculties. This is to suggest humans should be entitled to more rights than dogs, for example, but that the relatively advanced minds of dogs would also make it morally dubious for a human society to treat dogs and, say, sea cucumbers identically under the law.

Hypothetically, if we at some point in the future make contact with a sentient species of critter from another world, and that species happens to possess far greater mental abilities than us, would it not be insulting to them if we were to cling to a notion that only our species is worthy of being treated with the privilege of personhood? And what if they were to have the same attitude toward us? Do you think it would be righteous or amoral for another species to round us up for butchering to be consumed as exotic cuisine, be killed for some body part or another traditionalists among the alien species consider to possess medicinal or supernatural properties, or to be enslaved? After all, we may seem like mere "beasts" or primitive savages from their point of view. Is there a good rationale for it that doesn't rely on some intolerant, exclusive variation of nationalism, selfish egoism, or some other dismissive notion like "might makes right?"

It is perfectly alright for us to agree to disagree with mutual respect if that's how it will need to be but I reckon when anthropocentrism is taken too far it starts to very strongly resemble other bigoted perspectives such as sexism, racism, ageism, and some forms of nationalism. If taken to their furthest conclusions my values are wholly incompatible with human supremacy.

Who said anything about not taking mental faculties into account? "Personism" would only apply to people. Obviously when most of us think about killing animals for food we're thinking about animals with lower intelligence than humans, or in other words beings we don't consider to be people. I imagine if cows started talking and holding intelligent conversations our answer in regards to cows would be different.

The notion of being a person is socially constructed. It need not be exclusively reserved for members of one species. Varying gradients of partial personhood could also conceivably be extended to other species. As with all ethical dilemmas we face, the lines drawn will always be subjective in nature. I would argue some forms of life are so basic we can do anything we want with them without reservation, whereas some other critters, even if we consume them, should be entitled to certain standards of conscientious treatment all throughout the process. What most offends me is our species' tendency to take whatever it wants however it wants without factoring into consideration or placing sufficient weight on the interests of others we coerce and exploit.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It's no more immoral than killing plants for food.

[BaldEagle1991]

The only people who would think it's immoral are PETA members.

The only people who would think it's moral are KFC eaters.