Economically, our dependence on so much meat (particularly red meat) is unsustainable.

Environmentally, it is unsustainable.

Morally, I have a problem with the way we treat cows and pigs.

I'm not advocating for people to become vegetarians, I just think our society should eat less meat because the amount we consume is economically/environmentally unsustainable, especially when you consider water.

Plus, it would be healthy for us to eat less red meat.

Why the two in particular?


Why not? If you think that we should eat less animal products because of economical, environmental and moral reasons then you ought to advocate and adopt vegeterianism/veganism.

This post was edited by Gastly on Apr 19 2016 01:31pm

Because they are mammals and are more intelligent animals with emotions, etc. For better or worse, I don't feel as bad for chicken, fish, etc because they are not mammals and don't have as much intellectual or emotional capacity.

I feel the worst for cows and pigs because those are the two that we mass-produce and eat the most, but I really could extend the sentiment to all mammals.



Because I think it is too much to ask for. Asking for people to eat less meat rather than no meat is a much more realistic goal that will result in better outcomes.

This post was edited by ThatAlex on Apr 19 2016 01:34pm

Why don't you think that they have emotional capacity? As far as I know they correspond in the emotional spectrum when it comes to suffering. Fear and pain are very basic instincts.
How about, say, an octopus versus a rat? Octopi are smart.

Why should one's intellectual capacity matter when considering the effects of suffering? If we were to think of a pig and a very small child they'd probably both suffer equally. Now, if we're to think of an even younger child then wouldn't it still be equally morally wrong to inflict suffering to that child as to the older one? Wouldn't be any less morally worse to inflict suffering on the smaller child as opposed to the older one? Or if one was to torment someone intellectually disabled - wouldn't it still be at least as wrong as it'd be to torment someone who's not intellectually disabled?


I don't think it's too much to ask for. If one considers eating meat to be unethical then one should advocate for vegetarianism and veganism. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't at least argue that people ought to lessen their meat consumption.

Intellectual/emotional capacity should always matter when considering suffering or bodily autonomy. It's why we have laws protecting against animal cruelty against cats and dogs and not insects.

Call it a mammalian bias if you want, but that's because there is a high correlation between intellectual/emotional capacity and being mammal because mammals are relatively new evolutionarily speaking. This is comparing animals to different animals.

As for your questions about humans, it is more difficult to compare within the same species, so I think it is equally immoral to torture/kill/inflict harm on any person regardless of emotional/intellectual capability. This is what makes abortion so tricky for me, and ultimately it comes down to personhood and weighing two important sides against each other.

And as for the second part, again, asking for people to eat less meat first is a more realistic objective than asking people to become vegrtarians and it will likely lead lead to better outcomes. Sometimes when you are faced with a large issue, you have to go a little bit at a time rather than try to solve something all at once.

This post was edited by ThatAlex on Apr 19 2016 06:30pm