i think animals eating other animals is absolutely morally right. since
we animals (as well as many others) have come equipped with the digestive
and chewing systems for eating vegetables, grains, and flesh then there
is no reason why we should make a judgement call on the morality of
eating meat.
i think what we need to do is examine our own (as most of us have and do)
relationships to other animals in our daily lives, and from there make a
decision about whether or not eating other animals fits into our
"morality". the killing of other animals for food and for self defense
itself is a neutral activity..i mean it just is part of nature. we are
equipped by nature with instincts that serve for feeding and protecting
ourselves and our offspring and we will do what we need to do. question is, in our
human modern context, are we relating to the rest of nature in such a way
that those instincts can work purely. of course not. and so when we eat
other animals we are really distorting our relationships to them.
a good comparison to make is the way indiginous people have traditionally
related to the animals they eat. we all know enuf about that to see the
difference. of course indians do not all still maintain those kinds of
relationships...but we all know about internal colonization.
look at us modern western humans: we use our technology to kill other
animals (in both hunting and in war) to prove our dominion over them and
impress our friends. we drive through fast food windows and eat
hamburgers that come from countries whos wilderness areas are wiped out
for grazing cows which are completely genetically engineered species and
pumped up with chemicals and butchered by poor indiginous people while
the wastes and chemicals are then dumped into their rivers....cooked in
such mass quantities that theyre cheaper than a stalk of broccoli...by
people who hate their jobs and dont know who their cooking for. we buy
chicken wings packaged in saran wrap and styrofoam, we dont know where it
comes from or who killed it or what they put in it to preserve it...i
dont need to go on. i think its an obvious moral question in our context
and i think we should concentrate on teaching OUR children to understand
these dynamics. and along the way they will probably simply develop a
distaste for flesh, and learn to love sweet potatoes. and we can use the
health arguements which are considerable (as any vegetarian who use to
eat meat knows) and eventually a global political consciousness will
follow...
i dunno if this really adds any insight to the question. just my
perspective.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 5 17:15:58 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 5 17:15:58 1994
Received: from subpop.com (subpop.com [199.35.40.20]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id RAA06809 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct
1994 17:15:54 -0600
Received: from [199.35.40.2] by subpop.com (5.65/1.35)
id AA26376; Wed, 5 Oct 94 16:25:23 -0700
Received: by msmail.subpop.com with Microsoft Mail
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 05 Oct 94 16:16:39 PDT
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ecofem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Morally wrong/Morally right
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 94 16:15:00 PDT
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Encoding: 94 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
morals........ in the context of humans as a whole are
obsolete........... you can't just say this or that is morally
wrong........you can say ..."to me this is morally wrong"
trying to define what is morally wrong or right is forcing people into
agreement and that does not work......thats why laws put on to people (etc.)
don't work....like ...we live in such and such country and all the laws are
supposed to pertain to us....but they don't
what i'm trying to say here is.......to me it is moraly wrong to eat
meat (in my context) ......but for you it might not be.........if you don't
care about your action and it's reactions ...then ...it is moraly right to
you.
this...... like you were saying could apply to anything...........
as far as meat eating is concerned there are some huge "factual" (and
for some of us moral) problems with it in the context of how i assume most
of us (who have access to computers and such) would eat meat ........ none
of us NEED to hunt for food ..........moraly i'd rather be in that position
........but i'm not.......if i want to convince the other urbanites around
me to quit eating meat ....i'd have to just try and let them know about all
the harmful affects and side affects that the industry as a whole lumps on
to the world .......these are facts and not morals........ we can try and
communicate ....clue people into our ideas.......but ultimatly it's up to
them to decide what is "right" or "wrong".......... whether it is actualy
"good" or bad" ....also it should be up to us to deal with other people's
actions if they inspire us to do so.........
there are so many fine lines and sides to any "moral"....it realy
depends on the situation..........
so if you are looking for a "argument" to convince someone not to
eat meat .....the only "proof" against it that would apply to all humans
would be the "health" issue or the grain vs. meat (per pound volume of food
value and "resourses" that they use to produce) argument....... and clean
water, air etc. could fall into this ........you can use morals but they
might not be a reason for alot of folks who realy could care less........
there is no proof that killing anyone is wrong..... killing is just as much
a part of life as death is.......killing has just gotten a bad rep from the
introduction of law....and law does not apply to any situation in reality
i think we (humans) should fully participate in the food chain ......
mostly we don't ......
alot of people see no need for such matters these days.......and i wanna
know what should we do about them????
so i guess.... MY... answer to your question would be ....you can't use
morals as an argument because morals are to fuzzy of a human created thing
and they are too self centered...... and anyone who trys to push their
morals off on someone else is a little too egotistical (ofcourse this is
my moral trip that might not pertain to you so take it as you will :) )
.....i would use cold hard facts and possibly comparitive examples that
could bring out a change in their moral judgement
OUR morals are basicly issues we feel passionatly enough about to
actualy have an oppinion on .......
curtis
----------
From: ecofem
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Morally wrong/Morally right
Date: Wednesday, October 05, 1994 8:57AM
The meat/vegetarian thread continues, and the subject of morality has come
up
again and again. Is it moral or not to kill another creature for food (I'm
assuming that most of us would agree that killing for sport is morally
wrong,
so I'm not asking that)? And who gets to decide these morals and where does
the knowledge from this decision come about?
I realize that traditionally, eating meat was (is) accepted as moral due
primarily to Judeo Christian beliefs of humans being "higher" than animals
(although Old Testament verses could argue otherwise) But, if we
vegetarians
want to convince/persuade/coerce others into veggin out, where does our
argument stem from? Does it go something like this: Killing anything is
just
morally wrong is all cases? Why? Because it is! I said so! Or is there
something we can draw our moral judgements from? What "Proof" (or even
evidence) is there that humans killing animals is always wrong? After all,
we
are a part of the food chain as well, should we not participate in it as
such?
Just some questions - this can also apply to the environment too, or
anything
that has "moral" reasoning behind it.
anyone?
Tj.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 5 21:44:14 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 5 21:44:13 1994
Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.5]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id VAA12147 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct
1994 21:44:07 -0600
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from UKCC.UKY.EDU by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 1922; Wed, 05 Oct 94 23:45:48 EDT
Received: from ukcc.uky.edu (NJE origin NALAN01@UKCC) by UKCC.UKY.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7565; Wed, 5 Oct 1994 23:45:48 -0400
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 94 23:21:20 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Food Chain
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank god (or whoever)!!!!!! Someone has finally mentioned the food chain.
Actually, I've been wanting to really bad for the past week or so, but just
haven't had time to respond to anything. I decided tonight would be the
night I'd throw a little ecological logic into the veg/meat debate, but read
my mail and gosh darned if it wasn't already there.
I am definitely with those of the belief that the torture behind how beef,
chicken, etc. ends up on our plates is, well, let me choose my words carefully!
"Wrong" is out, "morally adverse" isn't acceptable, "cruel" is a matter of
perception, "inhumane" is ambiguous. . .what do I say? With the knowledge this
word will be challenged as well, I'll say "unacceptable." However, that's not
my point (ha! had you fooled.) My point is that there's this thing called
gaia. Which means interconnectedness. Which implies some kind of omnipotent
ecological scheme which ties every living organism on this Earth together in
one remote way or another. Which is why people are up in arms about the
rainforest (a zillion species a day forced into extinction), the ozone (what
we produce now will kill us later), global warming (the balance of carbon to
oxygen in the atmosphere really *does* mean something!!), etc, etc. The things
we humans inflict upon this Earth, harmless as they may seem, really do have
some kind of effect at some time be it now or in a thousand years. All things
are a web. This is why we have starvation of species like deer and rabbits
(and dare I say humans?) -- because we have wiped out the natural predators.
Everything hinges upon everything else. However we got to the place we are in
depended on a very intricate evolutionary cycle that predetermined some kind
of grand order of things, including a food chain!
Unfortunately for the balance of the Earth, we now reside at the top of the
food chain where we don't belong. But we were placed somewhat near the top,
which entails killing things to eat. That's how it's been since the beginning
of time, folks. Only we had to make it into a profit-mongering, capitalistic,
torturous process, so now we all feel guilty about our role in that food chain.
Thankfully, most of us in the U.S., Europe, and other places just plain have
no nutritional deficit if we choose not to eat cows. Our laid-back lifestyles
just don't demand it. Inhabitants of others areas however, such as Northern
Canada, Alaska, and so on, depend on a meat-rich diets in their strenous
hunting/gathering lifestyles. But I wish people would quit feeling so incred-
ibly guilty about "killing" animals to survive. It's in our instinct. It's
survival of the fittest. The animals we eat kill other things to survive.
It is all one big interconnected food web, without which life on this planet
would cease to exist (as we know it, of course.)
Thanks for reading my ramblings. Hope they weren't too incoherent. (It's
kind of late.)
Natalie Alane
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 5 21:44:38 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 5 21:44:38 1994
Received: from udavxb (udavxb.oca.udayton.edu [131.238.1.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id VAA12145 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct
1994 21:44:04 -0600
Received: from checkov.hm.udayton.edu by udavxb.oca.udayton.edu (PMDF V4.2-10
#2481) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed,
5 Oct 1994 23:21:16 EDT
Received: from HM/MAILQUEUE by checkov.hm.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.11); Wed,
5 Oct 94 23:16:46 GMT-5
Received: from MAILQUEUE by HM (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 5 Oct 94 23:10:56 GMT-5
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 1994 23:10:52 -0500 (EST)
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Morally wrong/Morally right
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
>
> I realize that traditionally, eating meat was (is) accepted as moral due
> primarily to Judeo Christian beliefs of humans being "higher" than animals
> (although Old Testament verses could argue otherwise) But, if we vegetarians
> want to convince/persuade/coerce others into veggin out, where does our
> argument stem from? Does it go something like this: Killing anything is just
> morally wrong is all cases? Why? Because it is! I said so! Or is there
> something we can draw our moral judgements from?
In Serpell's book _In the Company of Animals_ he argues that all
cultures that exploit animals, whether through hunting or
domestication, develop elaborate networks of ritual and myth to
justify, excuse, and expiate those practices. Since we don't
similarly see cross-culturally universal tendencies to excuse our air-
breathing or water-drinking, it seems fair to say that there is
something pretty deep in human life that feels
uncomfortable with the harming of animals--we always need an excuse
for it. For me this means that there is a basis for saying that meat-
eating is not the best diet for humans generally. This is NOT a
moral judgment imposed by one culture onto another--it's a derivation
from an observed commonality across cultures. Personally, I wouldn't
even use terms like "right" or "wrong" about this, I'd just say that
we humans are psychologically uncomfortable killing animals for food,
so meat-eating in that sense is not the ideal human diet.
I'd say that this applies to the indigenous cultures that hunt as
well. Some of us reflexively point to these cultures and say, "see,
they hunted, and they're respectful of animals and nature ..." as if
this shows the essential moral relativism of meat-eating. I
say "reflexively" because I'm not sure that this view of indigenous
cultures is very seriously observant of their practices. In general
(again, I'm thinking of Serpell's examples), cultures that hunt,
indigenous or not, MAKE UP STORIES about the animals they hunt, for
example that the killed bears are being sent to a superior spiritual
realm, or that some ancestor Caribou reached an agreement with the
tribe about their hunting. Such stories manifestly function to
relieve the culture's guilt or responsibility for the killing. For
me, respect for another species means trying to understand them on
their own terms, not making up stories about them in order to
alleviate our guilt. (Of course, we in the West have our own
expiatory stories ...)
Again, this is not meant as any moral indictment of indigenous
hunting cultures. I'm just pointing out that since apparently all
cultures show discomfort with harming animals, there is a basis for
the view that vegetarianism is an ideal human diet, a basis that is
not morally imperialistic. I guess I might also mention that for me
this kind of conclusion does not imply any right to interfere with
another culture or person--that's a separate question.
Brian
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 00:49:46 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 00:49:46 1994
Received: from pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu [129.22.48.4]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id AAA15056 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 00:49:45 -0600
Received: from calypso.SOM.CWRU.Edu by pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu with SMTP
(5.65c/dc-GW-940502a) (from [EMAIL PROTECTED] for [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id AA15171; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 02:51:52 -0400
From: Changkil Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: by calypso.SOM.CWRU.Edu (5.65c/dc-cli-940204)
id AA21180; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 02:51:48 -0400
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: pain of carrots
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 02:51:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1167
Carrots and Vegetarians
While there are many good points in the arguments against
the integrity of vegetarianism and respect for life (in the
form of plants) raised by several people, such as
H.C. Ellis,
there are some points I would offer to defend
vegetarianism.
I have no doubt that carrots would scream and yell at you
if they were plucked away in the Spring.
But, they would like to be picked away by other life forms
in the Fall.
Depends on our practice, vegetarianism can be a way to
celebrate plants
by dancing in the rhythm and reproductive
cycle of nature. I see this as important.
This experience of dancing is the source of gratitude and
indebtness
to other life forms. That's why we celebrate thanks-giving in many
cultures.
Not only carrots want to recycle themselves at a certain point
of time,
some humans donate their bodies to other life forms, too.
My Tibetan friend told me that most Tibetans still contribute
their bodies to birds after their deaths. Parsees do the same
thing. I hope you would not
consider this an odd example.
Red Pine
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 02:37:35 MDT 1994
>From <@nomina.lu.se:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu Oct 6 02:37:34 1994
Received: from nomina.lu.se (Nomina.lu.se [130.235.132.90]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id CAA16005 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct
1994 02:37:31 -0600
Received: from macpost.lu.se by nomina.lu.se with SMTP
(5.65/IDA-1.2.8) id AA09637; Thu, 6 Oct 94 09:39:47 +0100
Subject: Re: Food Chain
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Annica Young Kronsell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 94 09:39:54 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Thank you Natalie for mentioning the food chain.
I have been getting a little upset about this
debate on meateating vs vegetarianism and
morality. My irritation stems from a feeling that
this discussion is infused with an urban,
academic, western industrialized bias. Whereas I
agree that the way that meat is produced in the
industrialized world is unacceptable in many ways:
the treatment is cruel, the meat is full of
chemicals and it is a waste of energy and other
resources especially when it is overconsumed.
Looking at that I can see why someone would choose
to be a vegetarian.
However, I think this needs to be qualified in
some way. A simple subsistence farmer certainly
treats his or her animals in a different way.
If I raise some chickens who get to roam around
freely, have the grains they want and a dry warm
place to sleep if I eat their eggs and after a
couple of years slaughter them, isn't this a
totally different type of meat eating than if I
would buy my broilers which where raised in a
chicken industry where each animal has to live its
life in a tiny cage and not see the light of day ?
It is ok for us academics who sit in front of a
computer all day to go on a vegetarian diet, but
it might not be alright for somebody who has to do
physical labour 12 hours maybe outdoors in a cold
climate. If you live in a temperate or tropical
zone it is easier to be a vegetarian because you
have plenty of greens all year around. If you live
on the tundra I think it might be impossible. I
live in Sweden and the only locally produced
vegetables and fruits which are available in the
winter are: potatoes, carrots, various forms of
cabbage, apples and rosehips. Other vegetables and
fruits are available in the supermarket but they
are imported from across the globe and how
environmentally sound is that ?
I would like to make the point that we have to be
really carefully in passing statements on what is
'morally'wrong or right about
vegetarianism/meateating. I think we have to pay
attention to context and not be blinded with our
own situation. We can perhaps all agree that the
capitalist industrialization of meat production
and the overconsumption of meat, is something we
want to fight against and not really meat eating
per se.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Annica Kronsell
Department of Political Science
University of Lund
Box 52
S-221 00 Lund, Sweden
Phone: +46-46-10 89 44
Fax: +46-46-10 40 06
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 05:32:07 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 6 05:32:06 1994
Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id FAA18797 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 05:32:05 -0600
Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 07:33:42 EDT
Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-7 #5309)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 07:30:49 EDT
Received: with PMDF-MR; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 07:27:35 EDT
MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Thu, 06 Oct 1994 07:27:35 -0400
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Disclose-recipients: prohibited
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 1994 07:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: MATT ROBBINS 404-347-2234 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: ECOFEM digest 37
To: ecofem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Posting-date: Thu, 06 Oct 1994 07:25:00 -0400 (EDT)
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
X400-MTS-identifier: [;53727060014991/1769376@MAIL]
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 1
TO ANN AND BRIAN et al.:
I believe that it is essential that people be allowed to express
their viewpoints without fear of personal attack (First Amendment
and all that), but more importantly, input educates (Lat: to lead
out) us who wish to better understand the issues. I can't recall
what Brian may have said to trigger Ann's comments, but as was
recently indicated, let people speak and if you don't agree,
comment back.
Also if you restrict us men from participating, then how do
expect to lead us out of our "paternalism," "colonialism,"
"sexism," "trophyism," and other states of (un)consciousness that
come under the macho-focus (limited as it is!).
Can I stay in the system a little longer please?
