I mean, people hardly ever eat carnivores. Even pigs, which are omnivores, are 90% of the time herbivores. I don’t even eat meat, but this argument never made sense to me. Yes, there are countries where people eat dogs, but that doesn’t mean dogs and cats are equivalent to cattle. You can make an argument for horses though.
The argument works for a Western audience that are okay with killing and eat some animals, but find it abhorrent to eat others.
Most people don’t like the idea of dogs in pain, and if we did rear dogs like we do pigs, there would be huge public outcry.
And sure, you get Redditors and Lemmy-ites who go “Oh ho i’d eat dog!”, but they mean they’d try the meat once at a market, to maintain moral consistency. The truth is they’d be just as horrified if they saw dogs yelping in factory farmed cages, like we treat chickens.
But there’s no reason to treat some animals one way, some another. They all feel pain, they all feel misery, they all call for their children once they’ve been culled. It’s objectively immoral to eat meat when not for necessity.
Edit: sorry that was a bit snarky. I don’t think you’re completely off the mark but I would think an animal needs at least a nervous system to experience pain, so there are categories to consider and it may be morally virtuous to abstain from eating some animals but not necessarily immoral, and we should be careful to anthropomorphize other animal emotional states.
So fish have nociceptors, and a brain that connects to them, and they avoid painful stimuli. They have analgesic response systems in their brain to dull painful stimuli.
Even the most cautious interpetation of misery would include pain, so I would not kill and eat it.
Fish display sentience, therefore it is immoral to kill them for pleasure.
Maybe I’m off on this but suffering/misery would include pain + the emotional state of unhappiness or we would just use pain for both? Avoiding painful stimuli doesn’t tell me about their emotional state or cognitive awareness of the pain, just an awareness of the stimuli.
No serious study suggests plants feel pain. They do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli.
Many more plants “die” for animal feeding than with a vegan diet.
If you’re worried about grass pain, you should focus more on the animals that DO have nociceptors, central nervous systems and brains, and the ability to feel fear that you subject them too, purely for taste preference.
I’ve read some studies that talk about how cabbages in a patch release a warning scent when one of them is being harvested. The scent actually propagates, and even non harvested cabbages release the scent further down the patch to warn other cabbages.
I mean, people hardly ever eat carnivores. Even pigs, which are omnivores, are 90% of the time herbivores. I don’t even eat meat, but this argument never made sense to me. Yes, there are countries where people eat dogs, but that doesn’t mean dogs and cats are equivalent to cattle. You can make an argument for horses though.
Horse meat does taste pretty good
If prepped properly, still needs a milk soak.
The argument works for a Western audience that are okay with killing and eat some animals, but find it abhorrent to eat others. Most people don’t like the idea of dogs in pain, and if we did rear dogs like we do pigs, there would be huge public outcry.
And sure, you get Redditors and Lemmy-ites who go “Oh ho i’d eat dog!”, but they mean they’d try the meat once at a market, to maintain moral consistency. The truth is they’d be just as horrified if they saw dogs yelping in factory farmed cages, like we treat chickens.
But there’s no reason to treat some animals one way, some another. They all feel pain, they all feel misery, they all call for their children once they’ve been culled. It’s objectively immoral to eat meat when not for necessity.
How do you measure how much misery a cod feels?
Edit: sorry that was a bit snarky. I don’t think you’re completely off the mark but I would think an animal needs at least a nervous system to experience pain, so there are categories to consider and it may be morally virtuous to abstain from eating some animals but not necessarily immoral, and we should be careful to anthropomorphize other animal emotional states.
So fish have nociceptors, and a brain that connects to them, and they avoid painful stimuli. They have analgesic response systems in their brain to dull painful stimuli. Even the most cautious interpetation of misery would include pain, so I would not kill and eat it. Fish display sentience, therefore it is immoral to kill them for pleasure.
Maybe I’m off on this but suffering/misery would include pain + the emotional state of unhappiness or we would just use pain for both? Avoiding painful stimuli doesn’t tell me about their emotional state or cognitive awareness of the pain, just an awareness of the stimuli.
Plants process pain and can communicate with other plants.
By your logic it is immoral to mow your grass.
No serious study suggests plants feel pain. They do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli.
Many more plants “die” for animal feeding than with a vegan diet.
If you’re worried about grass pain, you should focus more on the animals that DO have nociceptors, central nervous systems and brains, and the ability to feel fear that you subject them too, purely for taste preference.
except they clearly have no problem with eating things that feel pain.
I’ve read some studies that talk about how cabbages in a patch release a warning scent when one of them is being harvested. The scent actually propagates, and even non harvested cabbages release the scent further down the patch to warn other cabbages.
That would be response to stimuli, which doesn’t indicate sentience. Interesting though.