any arguments that make eating animals ethical, regardless of their suffering?

>>24556330 (OP)
>And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:26

Just follow the Bible.

Yeah ethics are made up.

>>>/trash

>>24556330 (OP)
Make them sleep and then kill them. Zero suffering.

>>24556344
No, it's useful

>>24556351
Yeah they are useful on a grand-scale, but at the end of the day they are just made up. If at some point in history all the dudes that believed stealing was tight killed all the dudes that said it was wack and wrote everywhere that stealing is sick then we'd all really fuck with stealing right now.
If you personally feel bad for eating animals then stop, but it's bullshit to try and pretend it's morally correct.

>>24556364
fuck you

>>24556391

I like it = good

>>24556391
Heh... buddy? Fuck YOU!

>>24556330 (OP)
I can't argue for shit and am also quite drunk, but I belive there is good, or at least noble, suffering, which is not so terrible to inflict on another. The ur-example of this would be the hunter spearing his prey. There is no indignity in this and one would not be loath to die in this way. It is also natural to both in the full sense of the word, and the parties are made for killing and dying in this way. An animal killed by another for food like this would, despite the suffering caused, not be wronged. I know I wouldn't hold it against my murderer if I were to die that death. So there is not necessarily any evil in eating animals, to me.

This does not justify modern practices or even raising animals for meat (though the latter can probably be made justified, it just typically isn't). I still eat plastic-wrapped factory meat. I don't know if opinions on ethics are worth anything if they're not practiced.

>>24556398
/thread

There are none and that's why it's important for animals to not suffer
Unfortunately at the rate that industrial agriculture need to operate it's just not feasible
The way they're herded off the farm and onto trucks and then taken off and funneled to the slaughterhouse involves a lot of suffering
Then you've got workers who kick and abuse the terrified animals who suddenly themselves in a unfamiliar and horrible place that reeks of death
In the end they get a captive bolt gun aimed at their head and sometimes it requires two shots to kill them and then their throat gets slit and sometimes that's not even enough
The only way to avoid suffering with slaughter is for people to drive up to animals in a field and fire a well aimed captive bolt in their head, instantly destroying their brain

>>24556330 (OP)
Not eating meat will create more suffering through physiological degeneration

>>24556670
What makes it unethical?

>>24556687
Needless suffering
You don't need to eat meat and so you're eating it for your own pleasure
I don't personally see my own pleasure as justifying the suffering of others
Personally I eat meat because I don't care about ethical consistency but I often cook vegetarian or vegan food because it's traditional and based on my research it's perfectly healthy in the modern day to not eat meat

>>24556700
Pig not human
No suffer
My pleasure human
My pleasure better than soulless pig
My skeletal and brain organ development good
Animal in nature kill and eat for pleasure and nutrition
Cycle of life
I kill and eat for pleasure and nutrition
Good
Natural good
Cycle of life
Good
I good
Organs good
Good health
I human, I human suffer
If I not healthy, big human suffer, greater suffer than pig

Understand now, chinaman?

Intellectually superior beings can inflict suffering on inferior beings if it benefits their health

eating animals benefits human health

>>24556364
While ethical systems are indeed human constructs, that doesn't make them arbitrary or meaningless. Math is also "made up" in the sense that humans formalized it—but it reliably describes and predicts reality. Ethics is similar: it's a framework developed to minimize harm, promote cooperation, and help humans live together peacefully.

Ethical principles are the result of reasoning, empathy, and social necessity. They're shaped over time not just by power, but by negotiation, moral intuition, cultural experience, and consequences. To reduce ethics to “made-up stuff” ignores the sophistication and shared values that emerge across human societies—such as fairness, reciprocity, and prohibitions on murder or cruelty.

>>24556330 (OP)
Descartes believed that animals were living automata, biological machines because they lacked a mind. Though they have all the outward appearances of suffering and pain, it is hollow for they lack that special quality that separates the brutes from the beasts: Soul.
Torture them all you want

>>24556750
How did Descartes determine that he has a soul but animals dont?

>>24556755
soul is adjacent to mind

>>24556330 (OP)
I wonder why a lot of vegans are not okay with eating animals but abortion is like a nothing burger to them. I wish people would be consistent.

>>24556759
In contemporary philosophy of mind, 'mind' typically refers to cognitive functions—consciousness, perception, intentionality—whereas 'soul' is a theological or metaphysical construct lacking empirical support. Conflating the two blurs the distinction between descriptive accounts of consciousness and prescriptive or metaphysical claims about personhood or moral worth.

>>24556330 (OP)
Remind yourself that you're not a higher creature and still being to the animal realm, where we all have to eat to survive. While you might not control the meat processing, whose ethics can be called into question, you yourself eating chicken is no different than a fox eating a rabbit.

>>24556330 (OP)
They're already dead by the time I get to the supermarket.

>>24556330 (OP)
We are men. They are not.

1. There is a moral consideration hierarchy of beings.

2. Moral consideration should be actualised from the hierarchy of beings.

3. Humans occupy the apex of the hierarchy because of their superior capacity for cognition.

C. Humans should be afforded greater moral consideration than non-human beings.

Eating animals is in accordance with the rightful moral consideration of humans, as it aids and enhances their cognition and wellbeing.

Acting in accordance with this is more logically consistent at an individual level however, so for example if there is a very cognisant monkey, it should be afforded more moral consideration than an extremely unintelligent human.

>>24556330 (OP)
Animals eat animals all the time, we are part of the food chain.
This doesn't mean that eating animals is ethical. But neither that veganism is ethical. Rather the eating or not eating isn't the issue.
The issue with eating meat is the concept of "factory farming", i.e. the systematic slaughter of animals that live in inhumane conditions for the harvesting of meat. A counter argument is that factory farming generates a huge number of jobs for people, thus allowing millions of families to live and have a stable life. It is a more homocentric argument, amd it makes you weigh the value of millions of human lives against billions of animal lives.
If you want to be more "ethical" in your meat consumption, consider buying from free-range sellers, although it is generally more expensive, depending on where you live.
But if you really want to disqualify all ethical arguments, you can go the moral emotivism route: all moral statements are just expressions of emotion; therefore, you can't be told that something is outright wrong, it's just that people don't like it.

>>24556330 (OP)
All we know are our senses; what is good for our senses is good for us. The flavor of meat is intense and pleasurable. The duration of the pleasure does not diminish. It is instantaneous and continuous for as long as you eat the meat to until you are full. The animals serve no purpose to you unless they are being eaten.

>>24556837
but what if i a cute girl >.<

>>24556886
My senses feel amazing when I punch you in the face. Can I do it?

>>24556895
It's very pleasurable to see you get mad. I hope we meet one day

>>24556900
I'm not mad at all, it was a sincere question.

>>24556902
It's an odd defense mechanism to act confrontational on an anonymous forum. I think I formulated my argument quite concisely. You don't have anything specific against it?

>>24556351
So is eating animals.

>>24556330 (OP)
I'm hungry.

>>24556709
Kys fat faggot.

>>24556330 (OP)
I've only got arguments that eating animals is ethical because it inflicts suffering.

>>24556330 (OP)
If you don't care about suffering of sentient beings, then your views logically lead to justifying cannibalism since human beings are animals too.

>>24557067
Cannibalism in what circumstances tho? I don't find the need to eat members of society who produce a commodity that I eventually consume. But say we were in a starship where any organic matter must be recycled, I would totally eat onions

>>24557067
I care about the suffering of beings with the cognition necessary to engage in the social contract.

>>24557217
It just seems arbitrary given that most people rarely abide by contracts.
What do you think of cannibalizing people who break contracts?

>>24557287
It's no less arbritary than caring about animal suffering, but not caring about plant suffering.

Or caring about human suffering, but not caring about zygote suffering.

>>24557298
2/2

I care about the suffering of beings who possess the capabilties for cognition at the level of having signifcant consequences for the things and the people around them.

Pigs and cows are retarded. They eat and shit, thats all they do. There is signifcant logical merit in killing and eating them to benefit the faculties of humans so we can do important things.

>>24557298
>>24557309
Human beings are animals and not that significantly different from chimpanzees and bonobos. Human beings are just mechanized violent chimps.
You can create a rough hierarchy based on inferred degree of metacognitive awareness or cognitive prowess across species, but it's difficult to decide at what point it becomes morally significant. There is also the issue with the Problem of Other Minds.

>>24557327
>it's difficult to decide at what point it becomes morally significant

no its not, its really easy

social contract.

>>24557328
Define the social contract. Explain why the social contract is important. My background in political philosophy is weak.
Explain how the social cohesion of more intelligent animals like, say, elephants differs from the social contract.

If you're not going to bother explaining this thoroughly, then I will stick to believing cannibalizing you is better than a chicken, memelord faggot.

>>24556330 (OP)
we need to eat just like they do. simple nature. when we die we will be eaten by them. although I do think that those giant factory farms are shitty as hell, the only way we can ethically factory farm meat is when we are growing 15x15x15 meter meat cubes in a giant vat.

>>24557339
>Explain how the social cohesion of more intelligent animals like, say, elephants differs from the social contract

when have you ever observed elephants relinquishing rights to an authority in exchange for social protection?

>then I will stick to believing cannibalizing you is better than a chicken, memelord faggot

weird, off-handed comment for what was otherwise a respectful convo, but alright

>>24557349
>when have you ever observed elephants relinquishing rights to an authority in exchange for social protection?
You see that all the time in the animal kingdom, stupid fucking pseud. For example, among honey bees only the queen reproduces; workers forfeit all breeding rights. In return, they gain colony defense, shared foraging, thermoregulation, and disease control.
There are countless other examples. For example, in gray wolves lower‐ranked pack members defer breeding rights to alphas. In return the pack gains coordinated hunting, territory defense, and cooperative pup rearing.
You see such exchange in all levels of the animal kingdom.
>weird, off-handed comment for what was otherwise a respectful convo, but alright
You haven't given me a reason to be respectful towards you. In fact, you come off as an idiot.

>>24556700
It's not needless suffering if it's done to bring food on my table.
>but whyyyy do you believe that killing is justifiable in order to satiate yourself?
Why don't you just die from a virus. Viruses need to live and spread too you know. Do you think you are better or more important then them?

>>24557554
I don't have a problem with killing, it's suffering which is the problem
Viruses don't suffer and even if they did, they're harmful and can kill
Same reason why it's ok to kill rats and mice, because they spread disease and contaminate food
Obviously you'll try to kill them in a way that's as humane as possible but they're going to suffer and that's ok, because it's unavoidable

>>24556767
Veganism is but a scheme to make vegans feel morally superior to normal people, it's not about animal suffering or ethics at all. It's glaringly obvious when you notice what vegans choose to focus on.

Only arguments I seen that has any power to convince is religious arguments. And that is only convincing for those who believe in it.

The core issue is that industrialization has enabled unsustainable levels of wildlife exploitation. Historically, human-driven extinctions outside island ecosystems were rare, but today entire continental faunas are imperiled. We have moved from concerns over bee‐colony collapse to alarming declines in songbird populations.

Note: Although most island extinctions occurred during pre-industrial eras, continental ecosystems are now experiencing comparable stresses.

>>24557560
You've already cornered yourself into arbitrary shit territory. You don't care about animal suffering when it starts hurting humans, refusing to eat meat clearly hurts humans, it's something that everyone naturally desires and can't properly develop without.
>I don't have a problem with killing, it's suffering which is the problem
OK, whatever. Stop eating factory farm chicken at Walmart and start buying pasture-raised, killed instantly and so doesn't suffer chicken at whole foods, I guess. Why even bother trying to defend veganism at this point?

The core issue is that industrialization has enabled unsustainable levels of wildlife exploitation. Historically, human-driven extinctions outside island ecosystems were rare, but today entire continental faunas are imperiled. We have moved from concerns over bee‐colony collapse to alarming declines in songbird populations.

Note: Although most island extinctions occurred during pre-industrial eras, continental and marine ecosystems are now experiencing comparable stresses.

>>24557613
>and start buying pasture-raised, killed instantly and so doesn't suffer chicken at whole foods, I guess
What makes you think I don't advocate for that? It just doesn't actually exist anywhere
In most countries it's illegal to slaughter animals outside of a slaughterhouse and if it did become legal, this kind of meat would be prohibitively expensive, which I think is actually good but still
>You don't care about animal suffering when it starts hurting humans
Suffering is a part of life
If vegans started to care about animal suffering in such a simplistic way they'd oppose agriculture of any kind because animals are harmed by the vehicles used in agriculture
Then they'd start worrying about animals suffering in nature, animals eaten alive by other animals for example
What kind of consistent position could you have? That all life must end so that nothing could suffer clearly
The vegan position is concrete, it's about reducing unnecessary suffering
Most vegans will actually approve of thirdies raising and eating meat/animal products because they're unable to get enough calories through a pure vegan diet because the suffering of those animals have a real reason for it

>>24556759
lots of animals are intelligent including rats

>>24556825
you can survive on grain

>>24556330 (OP)
I don't care. i like when my prey suffer. they shall fear or fight me. I'm the one who is devouring their sins. Whenever i buy a chicken meal ,i think of how many times the chicken ate worms and insects for its living.life feeds on itself. That's the natural order. The lion doesn't apologise to deer,the shark doesn't hold the memorial service for seals and fishes.
Why does a vegan have to boast about his ethicals when even plants scream when you slice it's stem and tear it's petals. Is it's suffering less valid because it doesn't have sad puppy eyes??
unlike you I'm not lying to myself. I know whatever I eat had life too but atleast unlike you i only devour who committed sins too. And that's the reason I do not eat salt ,sugar and Yeasts or drink milk.
So i do it with rules,with purpose.
You avoid meat because it's violent. But i love violence. I wrap it in cling film.i roast it with oil.i slice it with surgical precision. The least I can do is not lie myself on what I eat.

>>24556330 (OP)
Easy.
Plants show every indicator of feeling pain when observed closely.
Therefore, there's nothing you can actually survive off of in a practical manner. Therefore, it's moral to eat whatever the fuck you please. If you're going to be causing suffering anyway, who gives a shit?
Maybe you might want to argue about degree of suffering, so you get one particularly dumb and particularly fat cow to keep the suffering to a minimum, but who's got time for that shit.

>>24557373
both your bee and wolf examples are wrong.

>>24558491
Eating grain is literally eating thousands and thousands of babies per sitting.
It's more moral to just eat a cow at that point.

The Inuits believe that all animals have souls, and they'd take on the soul of whatever animal they consumed, and any hunt that failed to show appropriate respect would give the spirits cause to avenge themselves (which in a way makes sense - if you eat an unhealthy animal, it make you more unhealthy).

In other words, how destructive is eating animals really? Maybe more constructive? Mutual aid? Symbiosis? Bees and flowers.

>>24558491
you wouldn’t be healthy

animals are killed in every single stage of the process of growing plant-based food. species are relocated and wiped out... if you wanted to eat one cow you could eat that over the course of a year, maybe a year and a half, and one animal would die. and hopefully that would be a grass-fed cow that had one bad day.

>>24558605
I am not sure why everybody is acting like what they eat is independent of the things they ate.
That grass ate a cow, and that cow ate that grass.

>>24558589
your point A has nothing to do with point B which has nothing to do with point C.
Many unhealthy animals are entirely fine to eat, and in fact healthy to eat, as they provide the same nutritional spread as a more healthy animal, but are easier to catch. Having a cold doesn't suddenly rob your meat of vitamins.

You then ask how destructive eating animals is, which could be a cogent point, given the food chain, but then you compare it to bees and flowers. Which involves no eating of either of the participants in the vast majority of cases.

>>24558563
>t. Never butchered an animal in his life

>>24558620
Define ‘fine.’ The macronutrients may still be present, but so are parasites, toxins, inflammatory profiles. And (b) healthy animals definitely do have more nutritional value, eg a cow that eats grass is better for you than grain-fed.

It was a framework about the relationship between life and consumption. And I wasn’t saying bees eat flowers - I was pointing to mutualism, the idea (c) that interactions between species don’t always fall neatly into ‘use’ and ‘destruction.’ Eating doesn’t have to be domination. In some systems (a), it's communion.

>>24556330 (OP)
It's a necessary evil at best. There are no arguments for seething at vegans that want better morality concerning animals, though.

>>24558743
>>24558605

>>24556330 (OP)
>Regardless of their suffering
If you want to eat meat without feeling guilty you need to get rid of your guilt, the animals aren't going to stop suffering.

Depending on the degree to which you feel responsibility for the crime, there are ways to avoid the guilt. If you feel responsible for funding suffering you could just acquire meat through a channel you (and more importantly, others) consider inoffensive enough.
If you feel responsible for not actively opposing suffering then you are incurable and more like than not pursuing veganism rather than avoiding it. Anything beyond that and you're larping for attention.

The concept of 'food' is so removed from nature.

>>24558595
yes you would eat vegetables

>>24558605
meat goes bad in a few days though

>>24559144
it can be frozen

>>24559141
you'd be missing vitamin A, B6, B12, D, F, K2, CoQ10, and the amino acids

>>24559150
frozen meat also goes bad quickly

>>24559156
no it doesn't

>>24556330 (OP)
Social contract ethics. Animals are not part of society the way humans are, nor are they even capable of being such, so they don't get a say in whether we should eat them.

>>24556330 (OP)
It’s not really a moral argument but in On Ancient Medicine, Hippocrates makes the point that meats and cakes are necessary for men (particularly those of feeble medical condition) to eat because as humans we have the ability to cook things and we should be eating healthier, easier to digest foods like meat and cake rather than eating vegetables and weeds like the animals do.

>And if one would compare the diet of sick persons with that of persons in health, he will find it not more injurious than that of healthy persons in comparison with that of wild beasts and of other animals. For, suppose a man laboring under one of those diseases which are neither serious and unsupportable, nor yet altogether mild, but such as that, upon making any mistake in diet, it will become apparent, as if he should eat bread and flesh, or any other of those articles which prove beneficial to healthy persons, and that, too, not in great quantity, but much less than he could have taken when in good health; and that another man in good health, having a constitution neither very feeble, nor yet strong, eats of those things which are wholesome and strengthening to an ox or a horse, such as vetches, barley, and the like, and that, too, not in great quantity, but much less than he could take; the healthy person who did so would be subjected to no less disturbance and danger than the sick person who took bread or cake unseasonably. All these things are proofs that Medicine is to be prosecuted and discovered by the same method as the other.

The idea of man as the subject of reason who rises above the animals even in the field concerning what they eat is a major theme in this Hippocratic text.

>>24556344
This guy get it

>>24556398
This

>>24556330 (OP)
This is the literature board fuckwit

>>24556344
Is
>>24559591
Gets

Spotted the samefag

>>24559599
Any books with arguments that make eating animals ethical, regardless of their suffering?

>>24559611
Kys retard hope you get banned

>>24559619