Vegetarianism And Compassion For Animals

[Pliny]

I've had two times in my life that I went for extended periods not eating animal products, partly for health reasons and partly because I didn't like the idea of having to kill animals.  I'm back to eating meat now, but I won't eat mammal meat because I don't like the idea of eating something that could be as intelligent and affectionate as a dog or a cat.

 

On the other hand, if everyone felt the way I do, then those animals would not be bred and fewer of them would exist.

 

So the question is, even considering compassion for an animal, whether it's better to exist and have a short life, or to never to have existed at all.  Are the animal eaters doing more for animals than those who abstain from eating them by bringing more animal life into existence?

[Not The Philosopher]

Part of this hinges on questions of how livestock should be treated. I don't think there's anything per se wrong with humans raising animals for the sake of eventually eating them, but there is a legitimate moral concern that can be raised about modern factory farming, etc.

[Ice_nine]

Part of this hinges on questions of how livestock should be treated. I don't think there's anything per se wrong with humans raising animals for the sake of eventually eating them, but there is a legitimate moral concern that can be raised about modern factory farming, etc.

 

agreed. The conditions of those massive meat farms are atrocious and harm the environment and the consumers. People say to buy local and organic but most families don't have the $$$

[Kia ora]

I've had two times in my life that I went for extended periods not eating animal products, partly for health reasons and partly because I didn't like the idea of having to kill animals.  I'm back to eating meat now, but I won't eat mammal meat because I don't like the idea of eating something that could be as intelligent and affectionate as a dog or a cat.

 

On the other hand, if everyone felt the way I do, then those animals would not be bred and fewer of them would exist.

 

So the question is, even considering compassion for an animal, whether it's better to exist and have a short life, or to never to have existed at all.  Are the animal eaters doing more for animals than those who abstain from eating them by bringing more animal life into existence?

 

i feel this is a just a way for meat eaters to pat themselves on the back without ever having to do anything about what their preferences are doing to animals. 'well they're still alive, that's better than nothing innit?'.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Kia ora

[Pliny]

The question and topic is not about "organic" but whether it's better for an animal to exist for the purpose of being eaten or to never have existed at all.  (And I'm open to the possibility it might not be either/or).

[Selah]

Why should I have respect for animals? They're machines. God made them for us to use and abuse and do with what I wish. 

 

They don't matter.

 

If you cannot tell I am being sarcastic, then I have done my job. Also, NSA, I am officially out of pocky. Get on that, mmmkay? Pocky is amesome. Especially the strawberry flavors. Gosh I would give my right arm if I could live in a home built in pocky. Anyhow, may hedonism prevail and all that. 

Edited March 12, 2014 by Selah

[Kia ora]

The question and topic is not about "organic" but whether it's better for an animal to exist for the purpose of being eaten or to never have existed at all.  (And I'm open to the possibility it might not be either/or).

 

if mere existence was the highest good, then we'd drop everything and set up a system of constant sex.

[PhuturePriest]

if mere existence was the highest good, then we'd drop everything and set up a system of constant sex.

 

We did. It's called pornography.

[Seven77]

The question and topic is not about "organic" but whether it's better for an animal to exist for the purpose of being eaten or to never have existed at all.  (And I'm open to the possibility it might not be either/or).

 

It's definitely better for animal to exist for the purpose of being eaten than never having existed. If an animal is eaten, it is assimilated into a higher life form and provides sustenance to it. What could be more fulfilling?

[Lilllabettt]

existence is good, non-existence is evil. even existence in hell is better than non-existence. wrap your head around that.

[PhuturePriest]

existence is good, non-existence is evil. even existence in hell is better than non-existence. wrap your head around that.

 

But how is existence in hell better than non-existence? Hell is existing separated from God, which is far from any sort of desirable existence.

Edited March 13, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[Not The Philosopher]

If you take the idea that "existence" and "goodness" are basically interchangeable, and that evil is not a positive existence in its own right, but rather an absence or a distortion of something, then that does seem to imply that any sort of existence, no matter how impoverished, is better than non-existence.

[ChristinaTherese]

We did. It's called pornography.

Problem: Porn doesn't make babies. And birth control and abortion prevent baby making to an indecent extent.

[PhuturePriest]

Problem: Porn doesn't make babies. And birth control and abortion prevent baby making to an indecent extent.

 

Contraception fails. People having sex in pornography have gotten pregnant before.

 

However, this is besides the point. I was just making a joke.

[Pliny]

But how is existence in hell better than non-existence? Hell is existing separated from God, which is far from any sort of desirable existence.

 

It's still better than non-existence.  And Mr. Aquinas agrees.