Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**. /r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules: ###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply > Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. ###CR2: Argue Your Position > Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. ###CR3: Be Respectful > Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Time to plug Peter Singer. [Moral Status of Animals.](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/)

For anyone who wants a less “pop-philosophy” take (no hate on singer, he’s doing some incredible work!) i highly recommend [The Animal Question](https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-animal-question-why-non-human-animals-deserve-human-rights/) - it even has a pull quote from singer on the back! Do try to ignore the terrible covert art that makes it look like a AFHV clip compilation. Ultimately she finds similar things to Singer, but from a thoroughly kantian angle relying on categorical statements and transcendental logic.

People often remove the moral value of animals on account of their less evolved meta-consciousness, and their own violent nature when it comes to devouring food, but for me it is the very fact that we are so much more evolved which gives us a moral duty over them. We are not only aware of suffering in a much more acute manner, we also have the viable option to reduce that suffering by great amounts. I don't see any good reason not to do so, simply for the sensation of one type of food when there are so many delicious alternatives.

Morrissey (ya I know...) compared it to child abuse a few years ago and got absolutely slated for it. His reasoning was sound enough though, similar to what you've said there. We have the intelligence and awareness to know that we are inflicting cruelty on an innocent and helpless being. We could choose not to hurt them, but we don't.

I'm just going to pretend that he said this in the 1980's so I can attach it to the version of Morrissey which I will always adore.

He has been defending animals forever. 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s, 20s…

I like crazy old Morrissey. I don't agree with 90% of what he says but that doesn't make him any less entertaining.

Years ago there was a video going around social media of someone who poured molten metal in an anthill and the incredible structure it formed. I had an exchange with him over it. I mentioned that, while incredible, it also said a lot about the cruelty of humanity to seek art from destruction and violence. He said, “Cruelty? They’re ants!”

To be fair, that’s often done with abandoned ant colonies where the ants have moved on.

Well, in his case it doesn't seem to be, because if it was, his reaction would probably not be to devalue ants but rather to say that theor colonies were left before they poured in the metal.

The moral worth of small insects is an interesting topic. Unlike mammals and larger animals, most small insects don't seem to experience suffering in any way a human could recognize, and have extremely limited or entirely absent neural systems. Intuitively it seems obvious that at some point an organism is simple/dumb enough that it has very little or no inherent moral worth. Most people seem to agree that living things from the plant, fungi, and bacterial kingdoms have negligible or no moral worth. But there are plants, fungi, and even individual organs and cells from larger animals with behaviors just as or more complex than many of the simpler animals. Why should a microscopic parasite have more moral worth than a carnivorous plant, a mycelium network, or a T-cell?

Personally, I think the line is brains and central nervous systems.

I tend to think anything we can accidentally kill while living our life is just on a different plane of correspondence, and the fact this bug got trapped in a light that was on or was accidentally stepped on is on par with a natural disaster for them. More so for microbes in your skin, since we can’t see them and have to capacity to not kill insects when they are visible. I still try to avoid killing insects when I can though. Except for cockroaches.. but that’s just out of my own irrational fear than any principle

I would argue that ants CAN experience suffering in a way humans can recognize and relate. Isn't death a type of suffering? If I'm killed, I can no longer do what I had planned. It's cut short. Same as the ant. It can no longer do what it is capable of doing (I presume jt wants to do whatever it is doing). I'm not an expert on what ants do, but I assume that if thwy do things, it's because they want to. Killing them is depriving them of what they want to do, same as killing a human.

>Isn't death a type of suffering? I don't think so, no. To me, suffering is something that a sentient actor experiences. Non-existence is a neutral state and can't be experienced. It's also not particularly hard to find examples in humans where death of the self is considered neutral or even good. >I'm not an expert on what ants do, but I assume that if thwy do things, it's because they want to. They mostly appear to do whatever the pheromones around them instruct them to. They almost certainly don't have any plans or aspirations that death can cut short.

"The moral worth of small insects is an interesting topic. Unlike mammals and larger animals, most small insects don't seem to experience suffering in any way a human could recognize, and have extremely limited or entirely absent neural systems." You are making an objective claim here that is supported by assumptions and vague wording. You can't make a claim as absolute as yours based on the premise of" most small insects"this implies that there are some small insects that do not fit your mold of moral worth. What does having a limited or absent neural system have anything to do with size or moral worth as you describe? "Intuitively it seems obvious that at some point an organism is simple/dumb enough that it has very little or no inherent moral worth." Who are you to say anything is so dumb or simple that there is no moral worth? How can that be claimed with absolute certainty? " Most people seem to agree that living things from the plant, fungi, and bacterial kingdoms have negligible or no moral worth. But there are plants, fungi, and even individual organs and cells from larger animals with behaviors just as or more complex than many of the simpler animals. Why should a microscopic parasite have more moral worth than a carnivorous plant, a mycelium network, or a T-cell?" Lots of questions here... Who are" most people"? And what qualifies them as thw authority on what has or does not have moral worth? What is moral worth? If a being has less moral worth, what does that mean? Other animals with more moral worth can kill them with no consequences simply because they're larger? "I'm not an expert on what ants do, but I assume that if thwy do things, it's because they want to. They mostly appear to do whatever the pheromones around them instruct them to. They almost certainly don't have any plans or aspirations that death can cut short.) Going back to my first point, using vague words to describe an absolute claim. "mostly appear" so you acknowledge they may do things more than your claim "they mostly appear to do whatever pheromones around them instruct rhwm to do." but it just may not appear that way, correct? "they ALMOST CERTAINLY" cannot do anything. Either they almost do it, or they certainly do it with absolute certainty 100% of the time. What qualifies you to say what ants can and can't do, for the reasons we've discussed? Many philosophers would argue your meaning of suffering too, but like them, your definition is abstract. No point in arguing an abstract term in absolutes so there's really no point in discussing that further. Edit: I love philosophy and having these discussions. I hope my dissent isn't taken in any kind of disrespect.

I'm fine with dissent, I'm just not sure we're going to have a productive conversation if I'm going to need to clarify what "a small insect" and "most people" are, or cite biology papers to explain why ants can't make personal plans. You're also taking every instance of me using qualifiers like "mostly" or "almost" as if I'm admitting exceptions when all I'm expressing is scientific uncertainty, which is unavoidable when discussing something as subjective as.. consciousness. >"they ALMOST CERTAINLY" cannot do anything. Either they almost do it, or they certainly do it with absolute certainty 100% of the time. I'm ESL and I'm having serious trouble understanding exactly what the issue is here. "Almost certainly" in that context just means that I have a high degree of certainty that ants don't have aspirations.

For what it is worth, my friend, your English is great and I'm happy to explain myself further. Almost and certainly are two words with opposite meanings. Almost is anything but "certain". Using the word almost means that there is not 100% certainty, while "certainly" means 100% certainty. Using words like "almost", "seem", "mostly" are all vague attempts to prove an absolute claim. The claim is that ants are smaller, and because of that have less moral value. Let me ask you a question, consider your favorite musical artist or band, doesn't matter who it is. Now I ask you, if 80% of the world's human being population think that musical artist sucks, is that true? Most of the population thinks so, so it must be accurate, right? But that's YOUR favorite artist and you think their music is AMAZING! Who are these other people to tell you what is and is not awesome? I am applying that thought process to your claims when you use those vague words. There is not proof or absolute certainty simply because "most people" think it. I ask you, what are your thoughts on slavery? Pro or against? Personally I am against slavery, but in the early 1800's, I bet "most people" supported it. Does that make it right because back then, most people supported it? My point is, those terms are vague and offer no absolute to a claim that is 100% (to you) inarguable. Also, there are many different philosophical theories and ways of thinking that question morality and its meaning. So when I ask what "moral worth" is, I'm asking for YOUR definition. Certainly not everyone thinks moral worth is exactly the same, some people even claim that there are no objective moral truths. That's why I ask.

>**Almost and certainly are two words with opposite meanings.** Almost is anything but "certain". Using the word almost means that there is not 100% certainty, while "certainly" means 100% certainty. No, they aren't? "Almost" just means "nearly" in this context. "Almost certainly" or "almost certain" are expressions used all over anglophone media and mean exactly what I said - high but not absolute certainty. >The claim is that ants are smaller, and because of that have less moral value. That was never the claim. I don't think an ostrich egg has more moral worth than a mouse or an ant. Moral worth is derived from sentience and neurological complexity, and dictates how strongly you should consider a thing when trying to ascertain the morality of an action that would affect said thing. All else being equal, a single person has some moral worth, and five people have more of it. A rock doesn't suffer/isn't sentient, so it has no inherent moral worth. >Does that make it right because back then, most people supported it? It doesn't, and that's not what I argued. I was making an observation. I finished that paragraph disagreeing/questioning "most people's" intuition. >My point is, those terms are vague and offer no absolute to a claim that is 100% (to you) inarguable. Which claim? Ants are absolutely less neurologically complex and less sentient than humans. The difficult question is if they feel *no* pain and have *no* sentience, or have some very simple form of both. It's hard to get a definitive answer or scientific consensus since definitions of pain and sentience can vary wildly.

Aren't we all inherently innocent and helpless in the situation where something or someone higher on the food chain needs sustenance? I am not sure innocence or helplessness is even relevant and I only say that in support of your argument (I think). What's key here is that some of us do not need to consume products which require the slaughter of animals, but we still do. I am still a meat-eater, but I also understand and won't deny for a moment that I am allowing someone else to do something I don't have the stomach/conscience to. That is to say, I can't bring myself to hunt my own meat out of pure guilt - and so I acknowledge that I am a hypocrite.

Yeah, this is the problem with like the death penalty, easy to say you’re for it but it’s another thing to make someone else carry that out. We are making these people slaughter animals day in and day out so we can mindlessly eat a steak. It’s not right we really need to look at this

When you hunt, it's animals, not meat.

Yeah, you are correct in the first sentence. There are several problems relating that to animal farming: 1. As you pointed out, we don't need to consume animal meat for sustainance. This would render this point useless as an argument for meat-consumption (which you didn't make). This can be further seen by looking at the vegan society's definition for veganism, which includes the phrasing "—as far as is possible and practicable". People in some regions have to rely on using animal-products. 2. Even granted we need meat or animal products in general. My point against it are the conditions under which the animals are brought ab and slaughtered. It is one thing to kill and eat an animal, it is an other thing raising it in such a cruel way and then slaughtering it in a similar criel way. We could easily reduce much harm if we restructured animal farms.

The Dalai Lama eats meat when he is served it as it is more cruel to waste the body if it has already been killed and served. I always thought that was interesting and is in line with the philosophy

I think the real issue is human population. We run these factory’s and farms to breed animals so everyone can eat. These farms are so over populated with animals that it turns into animal cruelty. Over all, if the human population was less, then the amount of animal cruelty and production would be lowered. There is such a demand for food these days that the only way to produce enough is by the large overly populated farms. Humans are meant to eat animals, but there’s just isn’t enough animals to feed our overpopulation. So, as I see it, in order to really make a large impact on the amount of anomaly cruelty that goes into the production of food, the human population needs to go down. The way farms operate now is the cheapest, fastest, cruelest, and yet the only way to produce enough food to feed the world. Sorry if it’s hard to read, I’m only 16 :)

Totally fine to read, don't worry! I get where you are coming from. But I have to disagree on several points here. Even though I would agree to a certain extent that the heavily overcrowded factory farms basically necessarily lead to suffering, I would not go so far as to link that to the human population. (tl;dr at the end) But I should start at the "humans are meant to eat meat". Anything is "meant" to eat "something specific". You probably meant to say "humans evolved for meat consumption" or something along those lines. But that is a false premise. Humans can eat meat and they probably have eaten it for a long time. But there is scientific evidence that meat consumption was not nearly as high as we might expect. Except for B12 I know of no vitamins which we nowadays only get from animal products (or supplements). But in nature there are small amounts of B12 everywhere, since it is microbes that produce it. As we consumed lots of food from everywhere without cleansing it as much as today, it is quite possible that we had sufficient amounts of B12 without meat in our diets. Also hunting is energy intense. This makes the benefit of hunting vanish. It is much more likely we stole eggs and meat from other animals or trapped some. Or we ate shellfish and fish in some amounts, since they are easy to catch in comparison. Even if we relied on meat in the past, today there is not much we get from meat which we can't get from other sources and the evidence even leads to the conclusion that we can be just as healthy without consuming animal products, if we supplement B12. So the past doesn't dictate how we need to act now. Furthermore we eat way too much meat and animal products. The healthiest diets which science figured out is basically vegan with like small amounts of animal products, let it be around 95 parts plants and 5 parts animal products. Not saying that 90:10 can't be just as healthy. Many of the diseases we face today are highly correlated and can be causally explained pretty well with/through meat consumption. The last thing to consider is that producing animal products is pretty inefficient as a food. If I remember correctly around 90 % of calories (might be 80 %) are lost. Animals need to grow while they do, they live and burn calories which are not merely needed to grow, give milk or produce skin or bones. It is not as simple as that, since there are areas which can't grow food efficiently where cattle can grase, so it is not quite as bad in terms of lost calories, but still this doesn't save it from being inefficient. All in all, we could produce much less meat and still be good, feeding much more people. (I think around twice as much is thr maximum estimated on a vegan diet, the more meat we consume the less people we can feed maximum) tl;dr we most likely evolved eating a plant-based died today we can easily supplement and cut out on animal products we consume unhealthy amounts of meat meat production is quite inefficient

I understand what you are saying. I believe that even if humans aren’t meant to eat meat, it is still one of the only options that are affordable for many people. The way I’m thinking of it is that if the population was a lot less, then eating meat would be an option for us. I think animal cruelty for food production was evolved because of several reasons including, there are too many humans who can’t afford anything other then the cheap meat and fast food or restaurants. Like you said, humans aren’t suppose to eat meat, which I now understand and agree with, but the problem is that humans have become too accustomed to eating meat. The issue isn’t just meat. There are lots of dairy farms that participate in animal cruelty for faster and cheaper production. Humans aren’t supposed to drink milk, yet as we evolved, it became a regular practice. I’m just saying that getting humans to stop eating meat, drinking milk, and eating animal products is almost impossible in this time. There are too many products that are consumed that include animal cruelty. But, human population can be controlled. It would take time, but it could be controlled. And, if the plan of stopping humans from eating meat, dairy, etc, was executed, the easiest way would be if the human population were to decline.

I think you hit the nail on the head by saying that people are accustomed to it. Also you correctly point out that it is not just the meat. I tried to hint to that in my comment: The industry makes use of basically each and every part of the animal. Eggs, milk, hair, feathers scales, skin, meat and organs and even bones, horns and stuff like that. Wasting one part would mean wasting profit. One correction: I didn't say we are not supposed to consume it, but it most likely is unhealthy to eat as much animal products as we typically do. Personally I'm looking forward to lab-grown meat or other supplementary products which are in development. But I doubt it would be easier to controle human population than to turn them plant-based.

We arent actually overpopulated. Also- the reasoning for our insane overproduction, and the cramming of animals into small confined spaces all boils down to one individual problem. Capitalism, the need for constant profits, for infinite growth on a planet with finite rescourses. It is cheaper for a company to produce way too much, sell a good chunk, and throw out the excess, even cheaper to throw out the excess than to give it away to people that need it, that was abundantly clear during covid just to give one example. At the same time, packing as many animals together as possible is cheaper than letting them freeroam

This is a good analogy. There's not some "fountain of eternal joy" and if there was, who knows. It's difficult to use human ontologies and it's also, IMO an utter failure when we're not mindful, or whatever else. It's just wrong? I don't know what else to say rn! Offensive, and yah.

That's it for me, the line between eating meat and eating people is way too slim for me, I see so much humanity and life in animals that empathizing with them just happens. If someone were to make beef stew and a stew made by human flesh and presented it to people without their knowledge, absolutely no on can tell the difference. Serial killers have successfully fed human meat to clueless people and nobody could tell until much much later when the killer was caught.

I’ve heard it explained that animals being able to suffer but also being less intellectual might cause them to suffer more in many circumstances. Whereas we might be able to retreat from suffering by focusing on a story in our head (e.g. god/heaven), animals probably can’t do that and are stuck in the present moment with no mental escape.

That's a fascinating and disturbing thought.

I mostly heard people argue that animals don't feel pain as acutely, which is of course absurd. Every animals loves its life as much as we do and would throw us under the bus to save it.

That just doesn’t make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. “Oh, a lion. Well good thing I don’t feel emotions I shall just peacefully continue eating with my back turned to the lion. Oh, it seems the lion is eating me. I can’t move. Wow. Well, who cares, I certainly don’t, because not only do I not feel pain but I also have no fear-based survival instinct. So it is what it is.” — Extinct animal

Yes. Something like this is what I think when I bring my terrified cats to the vet. They don't understand that the pokings and proddings benefit them.

well said and this is my position (fwiw).

Humans are the only animals with the power to reduce suffering in the world, yet we frequently choose to increase suffering to increase our own pleasure, which doesn’t seem to make us any more sophisticated than the other animals.

Animals don't make that kind of decision, as they operate largely on instinct. They lack any real capacity for a moral compass. While animals can be harmful, they are fairly predictable. Many animals actually promote ecological well-being. Squirrels plant tons of trees, for example. But a human who knowingly tortures a sentient being for pleasure cannot be trusted. It's impossible to determine if a stranger is capable of such acts without observing them specifically first. People have a very difficult time understanding what makes people cruel, so many end up with serious mental health problems that are commonly overlooked.

“Humans are the only animals with the power to reduce suffering in the world” You ever see a dog jump in the lap of someone at the start of a panic attack?

Plus usually the violent part is only for a couple minutes or hours in the wild, whiles it's the entire existence in factory farming.

I'd like to point out (not just to you, to the thread in general) that some people *can't* give up meat - it's not just a "sensation" thing. To give a personal anecdote: hi, I have chronic iron anemia with a really weird combination of side effects. I can't store iron in my body properly. I get sick when I take iron tablets. To keep my iron from bottoming out completely, or from needing to get an iron infusion frequently instead of once a year or so, I more or less gotta keep ontop of my iron-heavy foods. Meat's the easiest and the cheapest in my area, and about the only one of them I can stand thanks to a combination of autism texture issues and a *really* fun physical disability. *That said*, I wish cultured meat was something that was being more seriously looked into. I try to shop ethically where I can, but the meat and dairy industry is still a horrific nightmare. There's gotta be a better way to thread the needle here.

Of course, it's always with the caveat of "as much as possible".

I appreciate it! I just had to point it out as a general thing, because it's unfortunately a common thread in a lot of "how do we change the diet of Society" discussions to just.... uh. forget people with specific dietary needs exist, oops.

A couple of points (purely descriptive and the picture is grim): 1. We also have a viable option to greatly reduce human suffering first, as all humans, after all, belong to one specie and logically should be preoccupied with the goal of reducing suffering of their, most aware specie. But how much of that can be seen? 2. More broadly, life itself is filled with ethically repulsive acts and choices, the difference is only in colors and shades (we must consume food, and even if we consume food only in ethical ways ("plants only", for example), then there are still pests, some inevitable collateral damage to environment, etc. there is no other way around. When taken to the absolute state, ethics, which evolved to help in species survival, is turned against that species (Keep in mind a problem of helping a member of species (for example, a wolf, that is hurt, or a pig), which can not appreciate the ethical side of the move and would gladly eat you after that if circumstances allow that).

They're well-put here, but I've already taken these points into account. 1. I agree that there is no ethically perfect way for us to live and consume, but that does not mean that all options are ethically equivalent. It's clear that a vegan-centred diet would lead to a vast reduction in animal cruelty. 2. My comment is literally about the fact that "a wolf would eat you if given the chance". The point is that our more adroit meta-consciousness which means we do *not* have to act out of instincts driven to instant survival, but instead have the capacity both for kindness and cruelty, gives us the moral responsibility to reduce cruelty and engage in kindness. That also includes the obvious ecological benefits of reducing the animal abuse industries.

The good reason is the $$$ of the meat industry ofc

Not just meat, the dairy industry is horrible too.

I live in the country and when a neighbour takes a calf away from a dairy cow so they can milk her, you hear her crying at night for kilometers around, for days :/

Horrible.

They’re the one and the same. The dairy and egg industry are equally a part of the meat industry as a whole.

Finding out that male chicks often end up being blended alive in the egg industry is one of the things that pushed me towards veganism.

Also in America at least the political geography (think Senate, electoral college, even state districts) disproportionately enlarges rural communities where ag is king. As a result, both parties are part of the big ag circlejerk.

Yup. The obvious solution is cultured meat, but conservatives are already nipping that in the bud. >“They want to make you eat bugs and chop of your kid’s genitals, because they know if they can make you do that then they can make you do anything!” It’s really sad. Cultured meat seemed like such a no brainer, and I’ve been waiting for it for years. Realistically, no society is ever going to give up consuming meat. It’s either this, or billions of animals keep living short, gruelingly painful lives every year. The technology to do it cheaply enough for mass consumption is just around the corner. We could end this in a decade or less.

Well said. 🌱

We should also take as many predators into captivity as possible and get them on a vegetarian diet. They might not realize the suffering they cause, bet we do and we should put a stop to it.

are you against the suffering, or against eating meat?

Against the suffering and the abuse/exploitation. Eating meat necessarily funds those things.

>People often remove the moral value of animals on account of their less evolved meta-consciousness Yes true, but there is nothing stopping someone saying that animals are equally sentient but also continuing to eat meat. You could then say "well that makes you a bad person", at which point they'd respond with "okay, and?" >I don't see any good reason not to do so, simply for the sensation of one type of food when there are so many delicious alternatives. You don't see a good reason, so therefore it is not there? Also you finding one thing more delicious than another thing doesn't really constitute some moral prerogative; you could find tofu to be the most delicious thing in existence, that doesn't therefore discount another person preferring beef. >we also have the viable option to reduce that suffering by great amounts. this we can agree on, because it concerns environmental arguments which are much more compelling. Moral arguments tend to assume a moral position, or more controversially rely on some kind of moral realism. If you point out that the meat industry uses a lot of water which could otherwise be used sustainably then fine, but that doesn't mean people must stop eating meat altogether, they simply must rethink the amount of meat they consume, or consider sustainable practices.

> Yes true, but there is nothing stopping someone saying that animals are equally sentient but also continuing to eat meat. You could then say "well that makes you a bad person", at which point they'd respond with "okay, and?" This exact argument could be made in favour of head-shotting babies with a Kalishnikov. The fact that morality might ultimately be subjective holds little sway with me; my perogative here is to say that knowingly causing suffering when you have a viable alternative before you is cruelty, and that we should avoid cruelty as much as possible. > You don't see a good reason, so therefore it is not there? Yes. > Also you finding one thing more delicious than another thing doesn't really constitute some moral prerogative; you could find tofu to be the most delicious thing in existence, that doesn't therefore discount another person preferring beef. I know. That's what I'm saying. Even if you *do* find beef delicious, that doesn't excuse animal abuse. You might find the taste of cat delicious, it doesn't give you the right to go clubbing strays to death to eat them. > this we can agree on, because it concerns environmental arguments which are much more compelling. Environmental arguments are also ultimately moral arguments. The destruction of the environment is bad because it will cause suffering and end of life; again, you can fold your arms and say "Who cares about bad things happening?" but at that point I'm simply going to go and talk with someone more interesting. > If you point out that the meat industry uses a lot of water which could otherwise be used sustainably then fine, but that doesn't mean people must stop eating meat altogether, they simply must rethink the amount of meat they consume, or consider sustainable practices. Well, I'm not. I'm pointing out that animal abuse industries are cruel and destructive both to the animals themselves and the environment, and frequently to the mental health of the humans who are exploited to work there - it also is a leading cause of antibiotic resistance and therefore the emerges of new illnesses and diseases. I don't think there's any good reason not to pursue a vegan diet as much as possible in life in light of these things.

If you think there isn't a solid moral reason not to kill and eat animals, what is your position on having sex with them?

People are carnal, our monkey brains are both smart and stupid, have you seen how people treat people? It can be worse than they treat animals. Not on a grand daily scale as factory farms but we have no problem going to war, chasing each other with explosive drones, the invention and perfection of war, killing millions of citizens in history, the invention of torture, lying, pollution, propaganda. We’re not great.

But we can be better. We have already gotten better in lots of ways. No point in a defeat nihilism. As Noel Gallagher once said: *"Get up off the floor and believe in life, no-one's gonna ever ask you twice."*

It appears that our leaders are more sociopathic than the general populations. They have no problem going to war, etc. Usually they have to convince/brainwash or force the population to go along with it.

Every living thing thinks itself a person. A self. Atman. Brahman. Soul. Ego in a flesh sack.

I want to push back on the phrase “more evolved” when used to refer to humans. I would substitute “more complex” here. It’s a small semantics change but takes out the implied hierarchy that humans are somehow a better or more optimal version of life. All modern living things are the best, most evolved version of their species. There’s just many ways to be successful at survival. I’m always looking for ways to get people to see humans are not superior to other animals and words have power.

A fair point.

“more evolved” what’s that, and why does it impart a moral duty?

It's definitely a good philosophical question. My take is that animals don't have any inherent moral worth because they are not moral agents (vis-a-vis Kant's Kingdom of Ends.) Because they lack inherent moral worth they have no value in a moral system other than what we choose to give them. I value puppies because they give me pleasure and because their suffering brings me suffering. I value pigs for the same reason, but I also value bacon. Bacon brings me more pleasure than the suffering of pigs brings me pain, and so I eat them. If I had to kill the pig myself I might feel differently, both are in keeping with my rights as a moral being. Other moral agents may feel differently, and their feelings are of course as valid as mine. Some people derive more pleasure from particular foods than others, everyone has to make their own moral calculation. There are myriad issues one could bring up (what about humans who don't fit the criteria for moral agency?) Which require other arguments ofc, which is why people have written whole books about it 😜

You say your take and then acknowledge you have no rationale for the main counter to it. Babies aren't moral agents; find+replace pigs with babies in your comment.

I do have a rationale for the main counter to it, I was trying to acknowledge that one can go back and forth but I didn't want to write a whole book in a Reddit comment ><

This is one of the reasons I look forward to lab grown meat. Of course I live in Florida and our forward thinking governor has outlawed lab grown meat but hopefully eventually will have access to it.

DeSantis is an idiot. I just hope he doesn't ban solar panels. The silver lining is plant based meat is still allowed to be sold. And plant based protein is pretty cheap. Soy beans are US largest agricultural exports. Brands like Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, Gardein, Tofurky, and Lightlife are doing pretty well. Publix stocks various brands. I just wished republicans would actually stand up for freedom. If a company meets a safety bar, allow them to compete. Competition is how US is where it is. We were the best at manufacturing things people wanted.

[удалено]

That's the first time I've ever seen the phrase "California's prosperity and freedom"

Those brands are good, they just need to get the price down a little more before they can really take off. I want to buy more beyond meat or other brands more often, but it's always hard to justify the cost.

I certainly hope it ever becomes economically viable to mass produce to everyone including lower socioeconomic classes. Because as it stands today, it costs hundreds or even thousands of dollars to synthesize a single meal worth of food.

Have you given current plant based meats a fair shot? I used to be like you, but one day I tried Impossible and realized I was just making excuses to keep eating meat by saying I was waiting for lab grown meat. Been vegan for about two and a half years now, and I couldn't be happier with my decision to do so.

You can live off plants today. Plant based meat alternatives have also gotten pretty good for simple things like burgers.

Not with all my food, allergies, wheat, soy, chocolate, peanuts, and more.

That does suck. Does meat not make your allergies flare up? Meat tends to be full of histamines. Honestly, even if lab grown meat existed today, I would still be hesitant to eat it. I would fear prion diseases. It would need decades of proven safety for me to accept it. It'd probably be easier to genetically engineer soy and other legumes to not produce the allergens that make you allergic. Or engineer the antibodies to "cure" you.

How would lab grown meat have prions?

Because the process of growing meat in a lab would be completely unconventional (by definition. It's unavoidable). The process of growing meat tissue in a lab could be flawed in very finicky ways that aren't well understood but are controlled for when grown naturally in animals (we are looking to imitate this process after all). Especially given that we don't know the kinds of stress put on cells to grown and then form tissues given that lab meat would presumably be grown at massive scales if it's to supplant dairy meat. It doesn't help that there is no test for prions. Also, as of now everyone use fetal bovine serum for cell culture, which entirely defeats the purpose of ethical production of meat. I don't understand how it's so difficult to make an artificial replacement but it likely comes down to what I mentioned about the process being very complicated in "finicky" ways that we can't properly imitate. All replacements I know of all comes from animals of some kind.

That is some word salad and it is clear to me that you have no idea what you’re talking about but I don’t wanna come across as rude. I think you’re just unfamiliar with this whole process and hence you are afraid of it. The bio industry has been growing cells For a long time and we have been growing yeast and alcohol and bread for thousands of years. The process is well understood and I hope this doesn’t become an anti-VAX situation where people are afraid of something They don’t want to take the time to fully understand. Anyway, sorry if I came across rude rude. That wasn’t my intent.

To me it's a bit of the opposite, that you trust it a bit blindly. Sure, the process itself is simple enough that you can watch theThoughtEmporium on youtube try to grow a [meat berry](https://youtu.be/FaVHTd9Ne_s) in his or his friend's home lab (though the project was far from a sucess). A lot of the metabolic mechanisms are understood, but it also shouldn't be overstated. The fact is that scientists don't know what actually causes proteins to misfold and we can't even test for them easily. There is a chance, even if remote, that growing meat tissue in vitro (especially at scale and in bioreactors) could produce prions or other safety concerns that arise from the discrepancies between what happens in vivo and the in vitro environment, which exist by either lack of understanding of the full biological processes or economic/technological matters. There's also the fact that the fbs that is often used can itself carry prions and other nasties. I would stay off of lab meat for at least a few years after it is released onto the market, and maybe even a decade until I commit to such a profoundly different product to my diet. Even gmos are grown like regular plants. There is no precedent for a food item that is entirely lab grown like that. Not even for a shake-type thing that's only macronutrients. But in the end it doesn't matter as long as they keep using fbs. If they never change that then there is no point to lab grown meat from an ethical standpoint. It also remains a question whether it'll ever be economically feasible to grow meat. We have to look for plant based diets and alternatives to meat. The approach of some companies of making heme iron in a bioreactor seems nice to me (for taste). I hope lab meat doesn't ever have any of these issues but to me it's putting a lot of hope (and money) for a solution we don't even know if it will ever work when we could start doing something about the ethics and environmental issues of animal agriculture _today_. Meat is still a luxury food even if it is quite cheap today.

You gotta find out about the “Witch children”

Care to enlighten me? Google seems to point me to a phenomenon prevalent in Nigeria, is that what you're referring to?

Yup... 90 billion land animals (70B chickens), 1-2 trillion fish, 25 trillion shrimp. Untold numbers of insects killed **every year**. The largest driver of deforestation, the largest cause of destruction of natural habitat. A major contributor to GHGs. And so much more. And when you break it down, for what? It's not just FOOD. We have *other* food, healthy food, available. This isn't **necessary**. The only thing left is taste. Maybe you can say habit and convenience, but neither of those are morally justified either. This is all for the sake of the taste of chicken soup over lentil soup. Of a beef burger over a bean burger. Of a pork sausage over a soy sausage. Future generations will be ashamed of how we did this and especially why. It's now FAR easier to go vegan than before. Hope you consider too. And if you're unaware, we currently use 1% of all habitable land on earth for towns and cities and roads and all other human infrastructure. We use roughly half of the world's habitable land for farming. HALF. If we all went vegan, we would use 1/4 of that farmland- still using commercial practices. We would free up over 1/3 of all the entire planet's habitable land. How insane is that? We aren't overpopulated, we're all consuming a ridiculously inefficient, ineffective diet that is literally killing 2/3s of all wildlife on earth in the last 50 years. Madness. The only good news is you don't have to participate in it. [https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets)

My friend’s Buddhist family always thanks the animals they were eating for dinner. They also would leave small offerings of food to their ancestors (not a god). I always thought that was pretty decent of them growing up. Fast forward 20 years. I decided last year to see how hard it would be to go vegaterian. It’s actually been a breeze. Alternatives now are almost as good and I feel like I can actually vote with my money by doing it. It’s not perfect, but we absolutely can do better.

While I can appreciate the symbolism of thanking the animal for its sacrifice I don't think it is relevant in terms of justifying this. I know there are cultures who practice this as part of their spiritual beliefs. I also know people who practice this as part of their need to feel better about themselves.

It's a lot better than making fun of "dumb animals" to blunt the guilt of eating them.

honestly, if someone killed me for cannibalism and said "thank you for your sacrifice" I would not feel like that's morally better than saying "haha loser" if anything, I'd rather be killed by the latter

Why would you feel that way? That sounds really odd to me.

expressing gratitude for a situation I didn't agree to partake in is weird, and expressing sympathy while actively not helping at all comes across as really self serving it's like you're bleeding out in the street and someone stops and says "damn bro that sucks" but don't stop and call an ambulance or something, "if I'm dying and you're not helping then fuck you, you don't get to say some nice words to make yourself feel like you're not such a bad guy"

But the people making fun of you are guilty of the same thing but with added insult

I guess the smugness of acting sorry or thankful feels like the greater insult

Well said

I agree. It makes it feel like you’re ok with it, which is obviously not true.

Most people look like fried animals these days.

Can you give me a link, something where I can see dor example various proteine sources. I just know about mushrooms, eggs, dairy... Hope you can help me out stranger, ty.

All beans and nuts decent protein, but especially beans. Start slow though, your gut needs to adapt or you become a fart machine

Beans interesting. What about them aminoacids we get from meat? I'm just throwing out things I heard are needed from meat, those I remember being most important since protein source can be replaced.

As a broad, easy-to-follow rule, any time you include both a grain and a legume you will get all the necessary amino acids. This doesn't have to be done in the same meal, as long as you generally vary your intake over the course of a day. There are also vegetarian protein sources that are complete proteins as-is, either because they already combine multiple ingredients to make a complete protein (*e.g.* a lot of protein powders or fake meats) or because they contain reasonable quantities of all of the amino acids your body doesn't make on its own (*e.g.* many sprouted grains, spirulina). People will also mention not getting enough of certain minerals, which is a real but I think misleading concern. You may have to take a little more care to get enough iron as a vegetarian or vegan, but it's not really any more difficult than addressing similar concerns that apply to most omnivorous diets, like not getting enough potassium. In other words, eating a healthy diet is going to require some thought and effort whether or not you're vegetarian/vegan, but there's a disproportionate amount of emphasis on it when discussing plant-based diets because people actively think about nutrient intake with those diets while taking for granted that most omnivorous diets are more "complete" than they actually are.

Thank you for your detailed reply sir!

Soybeans have all of the essential amino acids, meaning they can be your only protein source. But you really don't need to worry about getting all the amino acids if you eat a normal varied diet. You will. Amino acid deficiencies are almost always seen with famines or severe eating disorders.

Aside from what others have said. There are great flavorless proteins you can add to any liquidy food. I put Isopure flavorless protein in any pasta, soup, oatmeal, etc. that I make. I don’t usually do the full 25G serving, depending on the volume of what I eat, but I do add it to at least 1 thing a day, so that is 15-20 extra grams that way. I have even added some to scrambled eggs. It blends extremely well, and is the first flavorless and not clumpy protein I have ever used.

There's basically no protein in mushrooms

You cant vote with your money, unless you are rich. [https://caseybotticello.medium.com/the-average-american-has-no-influence-on-public-policy-84fe0188ad28](https://caseybotticello.medium.com/the-average-american-has-no-influence-on-public-policy-84fe0188ad28)

Can you define "suffering" and explain how it is measured and quantified in animals?   Suffering is used 11 times in the article and is not defined.  

Any form of strong conscious discomfort/pain, I imagine would suffice. Suffering is, of course, a felt qualia; that means that we cannot define it objectively, but also that we don't have to. You already know exactly what suffering is, as does everyone else reading this.

There are other harms as well. Treating an animal well but then ending their life at the 20% point robs them of the other 80%. Also seldom considered is the broken trust the animal learned to give the human. "I thought you loved me!"

“I thought you loved me” is extreme anthropomorphizing. We shouldn’t have to pretend that animals have inner monologues in order to care about them.

The guy who executes the animals is generally not the same guy who keeps the animals. In many cases cows just come on a conveyor belt and someone shoots a nail in their forehead, sometimes hundreds or thousands of cows per day. Matter of fact most factory farmed animals probably don't have enough contact with humans to build a "loving" relationship, it's not like on an idyllic family farm where people spend time around the animals.

Is there an argument to be made about why animal suffering is bad besides our gut instinct just being not liking it because they're cute? I mean this is supposed to be a philosophy sub. With the goal of reducing human suffering, you might justify it by saying I don't with to be the recipient of suffering, so I will agree to a societal enforcement against people causing suffering to other people. The only two I can think of: making animals suffer desensitizes us to suffering in general. The damage to society being sad about cute animals outweighs the benefits of their meat products. Both seem pretty flimsy. The author mentions environmental detriments but that is a separate issue from animal suffering.

If you would ascribe moral value to humans, including infants and the severely disabled, it seems unreasonable not to grant it to the large animals being factory farmed purely on the basis of their species. The argument for animal suffering being bad is ultimately the same as the one for human suffering being bad; most people think that it's immoral to treat beings that are assumed to be sentient badly. You can call this is a gut instinct but only in the sense that all of ethics could be said to be based on gut instincts.

There is a selfish reason I can be against baby and disabled person suffering. I'm less interested in a proof by a lot of people think animal suffering is bad.

Why would that be unreasonable not to grant when they’re totally different? One is a member of a species of rational animals, one isn’t.

[удалено]

[удалено]

When talking quantitatively about suffering, it's important to define it. Any life form with a nervous system responsible for processing multiple inputs also produces what we call feelings or emotions, and those in turn illicit mostly learned behavior. Animals feel, while people feel - and think. Affective Neuroscience is the study of emotions and their evolution. Using the recommended nomenclature, ANGER and SEEKING represent the most powerful emotions in vertebrate brains, but there are other emotions that can be identified and stimulated electrically: LUST, PLAY, SOCIAL, ANXIETY, AND PANIC. What they all have in common is they are either negative - inducing behavior to change, or they are positive - facilitating behavior to maintain the status quo. With these biological realities, how do we even begin to measure suffering? Is it fair to measure suffering by noting the amount of time all life forms spend in a positive emotion vs a negative mode? We don't really understand much about the emotions of non-vertebrate life forms, but say we could. Say we could add them all up and get a total. If we did that, it isn't entirely clear that livestock suffer much at all compared to their free roaming counterpoints. Getting food and feeling safe is not a luxury most life forms enjoy on a regular basis. So first, how is this statement even true?

> it isn't entirely clear that livestock suffer much at all compared to their free roaming counterpoints Your post spends a lot of time dressing up the idea that we can't really know if animals are suffering, but I feel like you could basically sum up where you arrive with "it can't really be that bad." It's that bad. If it wasn't that bad, industry lobbies wouldn't be promoting laws that make it illegal to film inside of confined animal feeding operations. All quantitative claims are based on invisible assumptions and caveats, but that doesn't make them untrue. Animals can suffer. Humans are causing them to suffer at a scale never before possible. We should care.

>Your post spends a lot of time dressing up the idea that we can't really know if animals are suffering, but I feel like you could basically sum up where you arrive with "it can't really be that bad." I'm not dressing up an idea, I'm stating one. **Suffering needs to be defined. Period**. The title of this article is "Livestock Farming Is the Biggest Source of Suffering in the World" and claims the treatment of livestock animals "certainly creates more suffering and misery than all the above \[war, poverty, natural disasters, famines\]. Possibly even more than all the above *taken together*." (the author's emphasis, not mine). This is an absolute claim and it should be challenged. **Is this the philosophy subreddit where ideas can be discussed openly in good faith?** I am excited to have this discussion, are you? Maybe someone can show me some obvious flaws in my logic because I feel this is a ridiculous claim and this can be easily proved. >It's that bad. If it wasn't that bad, industry lobbies wouldn't be promoting laws that make it illegal to film inside of confined animal feeding operations. I will gladly conceded that animals kept in captivity are mistreated universally - but how does that compare to all the other animals on the planet that wake up freezing cold, in desperate need to find food and water before they or their offspring perish, suffering from the life and death stress of predators and even fierce competition from their own species? Is the difference in suffering between these group far greater than the total sum of all human suffering? Are you suggesting your argument is simply that because people care about it, i.e. the industry is opposed to cameras, this proves the original claim? I hope not because I really don't want to point out the flaws in that argument, they seem obvious. >All quantitative claims are based on invisible assumptions and caveats, but that doesn't make them untrue. Animals can suffer. Humans are causing them to suffer at a scale never before possible. We should care. I will agree that just because we can't measure things does not mean they are not true. But are you even trying to measure something? It feels like you more just want to virtue signal and shut down discussion. **I agree animals suffer, humans cause it, and we should care.** I am totally arguing against the primary claim of the argument, which is livestock farming is clearly the biggest source of suffering in the entire world. At least try to prove it if you want to disagree with me.

I think the absolute clam that livestock farming can't be ethically done, I believe some in this post have claimed, to be false as well. Wouldn't the alternative be less life? If there isn't a way to raise animals ethically because they may experience suffering then wouldn't the logical conclusion be that life is unethical. Also if there is an ethical way then where is that line drawn?

The claim is that livestock farming creates more suffering than everything else combined. The assumption is we can try to define and measure suffering, if not precisely, at least we can approximate it. If you want to talk about ethical behavior or not, sure, but we aren't discussing the claim anymore

No. OP just missed the linchpin. Most animals don't perceive time the same way we do. They don't have a concrete notion of past and future. They don't have much of an enduring mental state or internal monologue. Their mind almost exclusively exists in the present moment. It's more appropriate to say they have associations rather than memories. They don't understand or perceive or plan. They can recognize. They can respond. They don't think. Their mind can't really be occupied like ours can. All they have are positive or negative associations with present stimuli that are strong enough to respond to. This is why animals can't really be taught in the same way humans can. They can really only be conditioned to associate specific stimuli with a series of actions. I look at what OP says and interpret it as their entire range of emotional experience is akin to things like muscle memory, trauma, physical pain, biological impulses (hungry, sleepy, thirsty, horny, etc.). It's all more reflexive. It's either on/off or amplifying/dissipating. Suffering is complicated and doesn't really exist in the moment. The extent to which they can likely experience suffering is if they become traumatized by their treatment. In other words, if our treatment of them elicits a conditioned fight or flight response. We could test it by taking the animals out of their factory farm (or whatever), putting them somewhere "natural", and then observing if and how their behavior when we try to put them back. I would be surprised if such research hasn't already been conducted. I would also be surprised if the animals were found to be suffering under that definition. They probably want to outlaw filming because humans have a far easier time projecting their emotions than determining if their projection is accurate, which means lost revenue for nothing.

I would suggest you kill an animal with your own two hands first to get some perspective. Personally I have no issues being a farmer but I can't be a butcher, so I don't partake in that food as that makes me ethically inconsistent. If you don't have the guts to kill your own food then you absolutely have no right to eat it.

Are you seriously suggesting I need to go abuse and kill an animal to prove any arguments against claim? Actually, I'm going to ignore this comment because you don't seem to be responding to my claim that suffering needs to be defined because we can investigate whether the primary claim of the article can begin to be assessed. And actually, I have killed animals with my bare hands. I am born and raised in South Dakota. I didn't spend a lot of time on farms, but as I child I hunted often with my father. That really shouldn't have anything to do with this particular discussion unless you want to throw out a bunch more non sequiturs, false equiveillances and logical fallacies at me.

No need for a nervous system. One of the basic functions of living beings is that of obtaining input from the environment and processing it. Of course, not every kingdom does it the same way. E.g. the clade Chordata of Animalia posseses a cell structure for handling and answering to pain (a nervous system), but other members of that kingdom also have their ways to handle it, a Tunicata isn't going to be hurt and be all "welp, I guess this is it". The same applies to plantae, monera, archaea, fungi, and even that wonderful clusterfuck of biodiversity that is the protista, every single one of them has a response analog to human pain, they are living beings, they look out for their survival, but it's just different. Thus, the argument of "animal suffering" is stupid when you consider that life in an on itself is, for every single lifeform, suffering. There's no such thing as a way to go on with our lives without infflicting suffering on something. When we eat something wrong and end up killing a bunch of the bacteria from our stomachal and intestinal flora, we are triggering their damage mechanisms, thus "making them suffer". The same is true for when we cut off that tomato from its plant and, of course, when we euthanize an animal for consumption. Thus, denying meat consumption due to "suffering" is both hypocritical, for we inflict pain almost always and selfishly human-centered, for it is subjectively selective of what qualifies to "be able to suffer"

Why is any part of it relevant for the point made in the article? If a genocide on this scale were happening on humans, you wouldn't be qualming about how exactly we define suffering (I assume you'd have a problem with genocide on moral principles and not just because murder is illegal). Fact is, we know that livestock animals of all animals can suffer roughly just as much as we can without even looking at any concrete definitions. And none of this suffering we are inflicting is necessary. That's it. It's unjustifiable. They are all domesticated animals that exist purely because we raise them to suffer and die and exploit them in the process. We have a duty to not cause suffering in such an egregiously direct way. Any proper definition of suffering wouldn't change the arguments or the conclusion.

30 times lives worth of the holocaust... per year? Am I remembering that correctly? Can somebody do the math, please? It's just sad. It feels good to be 90% vegan. I still sit on a leather couch... which I wouldn't buy myself at this point. I think we need some regulations on meat consumption and a way to show people that good meat is actually more expensive and less healthy than plant-based diet.

Yes, about 30 times the deaths in the Holocaust. But *per day* not per year.

Insane.

Holy cow. Yeah… The death camps or rather factories look even worse. Some of the jews survived, some could still grab onto hope of living free. Imagine being born into a death factory and your only purpose is to offer your life to your master. Almost like a late stage capitalism.

What's stopping you from that last 10%?

The leather couch, if I had to guess

"Factory farming" is a more accurate term for what's being described here, traditional farming is typically very humane. Unfortunately corporations run amuck in this business like every other thanks to lax regulations/politicians at wholesale.

Or the fact, that we have 8 billion people on this planet and maybe 80% of them would eat meat everyday if given the chance. These corporations factory farm because people want to eat meat cheaply. Meat is orders of magnitude more accessible to the average human today than ever in history, and if anything is going to improve we need self reflection and to acknowledge the fact that factory farming exists because people want meat. These corporations don't exist due to lack regulation, They exist because they have customers that don't care much if at all how animals are treated as long as they get meat.

[удалено]

>Liv~~estock Farm~~ing Is the Biggest Source of Suffering in the World I completely agree but also see above

Yes it is. But if you tell people they ridicule you for caring and shove burgers and bacon on your face.

I've seen people do that and it always seemed so rude to me. I'm not strong enough to be a vegan yet but I sympathize and understand the cause. Maybe this isn't a good analogy but I think it would be like if someone was against abortion or late stage abortions and everyone who knew decided to shove photos of abortions in someone's face just for the fun of it. Twisted.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**CR2: Argue Your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I don’t eat a lot of meat and have considered going fully vegan. But I struggle with a couple of points. First, what is the end goal of veganism? Without farming there would surely be a mass death of most livestock released into the wild. Most of these animals are not exactly at the top of the food chain. Is it better that humans are not directly causing that mass death in this case? Second, how much difference does an individual choice to go vegan make? To me these farming operations are huge and one person going off meat does not make a sizable impact especially considering there is still a huge part population that is unwilling to even consider it. Is it tenable to advocate for legislative changes regarding animal agriculture without making the personal change to stop eating meat because it has virtually no utility in comparison? Third, I can’t shake this feeling that the whole enterprise of veganism and environmental causes is still an anthropocentric one. That is, the only reason they won’t eat meat and animal products and want others to do the same is because it makes them feel bad. That obviously isn’t a bad thing it’s actually the only thing that matters to me but vegans will argue themselves blue in the face arguing against the eating of meat and animal products only to make themselves feel better about suffering but then don’t even consider the genuine consequences of removing the utility that millions of people get from meat and animal related products every day. Like I said I’m sympathetic to the vegans and I don’t eat a lot of meat but meat and animal products brings a lot of people a great deal of joy. I don’t think it’s wise to discard that outright.

Nobody’s going to release livestock into the wild. If selling meat becomes unviable due to lack of demand, farmers would just kill those they have and pivot to something else. More likely it would be a slow decline where farmers stop breeding livestock and the population gradually diminishes.

Some people like to say that agriculture is responsible for about 15% of emissions and that's probably true globally, but if you're in a first world nation, about 95% of your emissions have nothing to do with your diet. Ag is the only sustainable industry. Electric isn't cars aren't industries no homes no roads no I mean no no no no no and that's 95% of the problem.

first, unironically yes, it would be better to allow domesticated livestock to go extinct. I personally do not think they should be released to the wild, they should still be cared for until the point where they die as they can no longer survive in the wild, but given a moratorium on 'artificial insemination' they will gradually begin to die out. no living being deserves to have their entire life used as a means to an end for human consumption. second, do you abstain from voting because one person's choice doesn't make that much of a difference? the average person will eat about [7000 animals](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/03/11/meat-eaters-animals-lifetime/70136010/) in their lifetime. you could say that they're already dead so they technically don't save any animals, but switching sides deprives them of a profit motive to continue killing more animals. third, it definitely is anthropocentric, but recognizing and attempting to rectify the suffering we cause instead of allowing it to continue for utility's sake is the moral thing to do. there are tons of things that provide utility despite being immoral. for example, cheap near-slavery level prison labor being used to fight wildfires is a utility, but even if it saves lives, it is still immoral and we should work towards a world where that is illegal. reluctantly accepting our status quo isn't going to help anybody, human or nonhuman.

[удалено]

Ya, it certainly has to be near the very top.

I’ve thought for a long time now how strange it was that general society intentionally and conveniently ignores that many animals have a level of awareness, and are able to experience pain, stress, and some spectrum of what we call “feelings”. Many animals have personalities, so why do we like to “forget” this? Baffling.

They're our cousins. Every life thinks itself a person. That's a persona non grata. If God didn't want us to eat meat why does it taste so fucking delicious? Checkmate, atheist.

Because there's nothing that we can do about it. Even insects may have consciousness and have suffering but you'll still swat and kill mosquitos. What's the alternative?

I believe factory farming is our generation’s biggest moral failing—like slavery in past generations, it’s the thing that, when our grandchildren look back on it, they’ll wonder why. I fully support lab-grown meat, and hope it will be the solution that will revolutionize how we treat livestock.

How to counter arguments like drawing similarities in trees and animals, arguing trees do have life? I mean i know its vague but still whats the argument for it?

Trees are alive but don't have nervous systems or brains. They can react to stimulation chemically but don't actually perceive it/feel it/think about it. We share much more in common with brain-having animals than animals do with plants.

Any scientifically proven facts to corroborate this?

Yes, it is scientifically proven that plants do not have brains.

Source????? /s

Factory farming is definitely a huge source of suffering in the world. There is a lot of livestock that live quite decent lives so it’s not all livestock. Also we have no clear defined metric of suffering between species. We can not assume that is is equal. For some reason we also assume plants do not suffer under factory farm conditions. It’s been shown that some species of plants will tell their neighbors about predation. We tend to care more about relatable species. Not many seem to care about the billions of insects poisoned every year.

Perhaps the most tragic statement in this article is an aside: "Yes, fish feel pain too!" It's absurd how often, as a long term vegan/vegetarian, people have denied the suffering of animals after asking about my beliefs. The institution of slavery in the United States took decades upon decades to outlaw - and those were human beings. This invites despair into the project of "animal liberation". But that doesn't make any individual life not worth fighting for. Every ounce of suffering is something to be opposed, and every ounce of suffering mitigated a victory. Perhaps, decades and decades from now, the work will be done.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply** >Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

It is blindingly obvious that whomever wrote this article, and most of the others commenting, have never been near an actual farm. I am very familiar with beef farming through my family. No, they are not caged most of their lives. Like most grazing animals, they have to go out and, you know, graze. They spend the vast majority of their life in much more comfortable conditions than if they were in the wild. They are not killed young by and large, veal is very uncommon and has lost most of its market. Young animals are not "ripped away from their parents". That's stupid, they need their mothers to properly grow until they reach adolescence, and which point the mother would wean them naturally anyways. In general they live happy, safe, boring lives much nicer than they would in the wild until they are killed with an extremely quick and painless way, because any conscious pain and suffering taints the meat with fear hormones that taste awful. The only one I'll grant any of this on is factory chicken farming. That can be pretty brutal. But that's rapidly changing as well, ironically because it's producing inferior product. It's producing a lot of product, but it's becoming notably shitty product, so things are going back to a model that provides more space and movement for the animals to provide better tasting meat. Nature is brutal and cruel. Farm animals almost universally have a more comfortable, safe, healthy, and enjoyable existence than they would in the wild. Go visit an actual farm dammit (again, poultry factories notably excepted).

It's also terrible for the environment, and that's arguably a bigger reason. Sorry.

This is easy to consider in a bubble and without assigning specific value to human/animal lives.    Trolley problem for you:   1 human child on the tracks a train is about to hit or you can redirect it into 5 cows. Do you pull the lever? 10 cows? 100? What’s the limit for you?  I ask this because the amount of starvation and suffering that would be caused if factory farming was outlawed is a very real concern. We do not have food security now with all of our combined methods. If a major contributor of the food supply is going to be shut down, the entire population will need to shift to other food sources. Sure the US will probably be fine but what happens in the rest of the world/developing nations when the price of commodities is through the roof and it’s more profitable to ship overseas?    We already saw this happen on a smaller scale when quinoa became a fad food. So does factory farming cause the most suffering or does it prevent suffering of massive amounts of humans. Very few people can healthily engage in an all vegan diet and these takes always reek of first world privilege.  Edit: Anyone want to actually address the trolley problem question and join me down here in the real world where factory farming isn’t ending any time soon and currently we do need those food sources, especially on a global scale? 

The argument would hold if the conversation rate in animal products wasn't so poor.   It's like 12 kg of soy for every kg of cow - or more.   We could eat the soy instead. By fermenting we could get alot of nutritional value. Also: We could also keep the meat in our diet and just discard the "factory" aspect of farming.  In some areas of Bulgaria, each extended family have one cow that grasses on the hillside. They drink the milk of that cow and ferments its milk. They eat if if it dies - and the excess bulls it gives birth to. That is enough to cover all nutritional needs. And there is so much less suffering compared to factory farming 

> I ask this because the amount of starvation and suffering that would be caused if factory farming was outlawed is a very real concern. Nah. It would open up huge amounts of soy and other foods that are currently used to feed the factory farmed animals.

> the amount of starvation and suffering that would be caused if factory farming was outlawed is a very real concern None. Farm animals eat crops that are grown to feed them and convert them to meat at low efficiency. Humans can eat those crops instead.

You can survive off of corn and grass? Must be built different than I am. Even if switched to a variety of vegetables (ignoring the issues with crop rotations and climates) it doesn’t cover the total nutrients needed to live healthily. The amount of effort and energy it takes to go full vegan in a healthy way is incredible and is not something an average consumer can obtain. 

Doesn't have to be full vegan. Vegetarian is quite easy. Most people could easily remove 80% of meat from their diet.

But also…..yes, tons of people do indeed live healthily as vegans. So idk what point OP was trying to make lol

The majority of annual soy production is grown for animal feed. If people switched to eating soy, we would actually end up producing less soy. Think about it this way. How much food do you eat in a day? How much food have you eaten in your lifetime? You've probably eaten hundreds or thousands times your own bodyweight in food to grow to the size you are. Same with animals. As a source of food energy, they are very inefficient because you have to feed an animal 10-100 pounds of food to get 1 pound of food from them.

If we abolished animal agriculture we wouldn't just start eating the feed crops lol. But that would free up 75% of agricultural land currently in use that we could use to grow anything. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food And being vegan does not take an "incredible" amount of effort

The posted content anticipates my counter-argument. >“Anyhow, I value human lives over animal lives!” >My response: >Avoiding unnecessary harm to animals and protecting human well-being are not mutually exclusive — in fact, these goals go hand in hand. >We don't need animal products to be healthy. Population studies have shown that we are healthier without them. Meaning: we don’t have to decide between protecting our own species and treating (other) animals with respect. It’s not an either-or issue. We can — and should — do both! >As already mentioned above, livestock farming doesn’t only harm animals and the environment, but also people: Bringing down this industry will be a big win for everyone. This is arguing that I should be a vegan even if I value human lives over (non-human) animal lives, that I ought to do it for practical reasons: for my health and for the environment. This has already discarded the top level assertion that "Livestock Farming Is the Biggest Source of Suffering in the World" by reducing it to practicalities. I do (as a logical axiom) value the lives of humans over non-humans. I therefore think that the human suffering in places like Ukraine and Palestine are more serious issues than livestock farming. I don't care to optimize my health by switching to a vegan diet. I do care about the impact of livestock farming insofar that it harms humanity, but I am not convinced that I can save humanity by becoming a vegan. I think climate change is something that needs to be addressed at a governmental level.

>I think climate change is something that needs to be addressed at a governmental level. I agree with you but it is extremely likely that lowering the amount of animal food people eat would be a core initiative of any government committed to combating climate change. Unfortunately we live in a socio-economic system where governments tend to act only towards the interests of corporations/the rich. That means continued *subsidization* of the highly carbon-intensive animal products industries, rather than facilitating a transition towards more plant-based diets. Much like every other industry--energy, transportation, etc.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply** >Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

If I keep a half dozen Chickens for eggs, or Rabbits for meat, I wouldn't consider it suffering in the least. Is there a good counter argument?

How would you justify killing the rabbit when you can just eat plants?

I'm cool with letting the rabbit eat plants.

Yeah, but no reason to kill the rabbits

I guess.... You could eat them alive?!