Is Free Range Poultry really the kinder option?

[Char-x]

Originally Posted by Stephanae

is very similar to an argument like "people are worth more than other animals because they're smarter." What difference does it make whether plants have nervous systems or whether they feel or whether they love? What difference does it make if cats love but houseflies don't? What difference does it make if pigs are smarter than chickens? What difference does it make if humans have more complex emotions than iguanas?

I am not doing any of those things. I'm expressing a belief that the answer to my questions above is "no difference at all." I believe all life is equally valuable. You believe in a bond among animals of all kinds. I respect that. I believe in a bond among all life of all kinds, and the elements and minerals and other natural things that sustain it.

I'm not jumping on you but I do think you are slightly contradicting yourself here because correct me if I'm wrong but all through the other posts I have had the impression you believe humans are the most important species, then plants then animals. You have put humans first because they show more complex emotions and their ability to think and be smart apparently outweighs other animals? You also say you believe all life in equally valuable but then go on to express humans are more important that animals etc...this isn't making sense.

Originally Posted by Stephanae

Am I truly the only person on this forum who has ever loved a tree?

No.

Originally Posted by Stephanae

The Tin Woodman was all wrong. The Scarecrow was too, though. A brain doesn't work without a heart or vice versa. At least, I never could tell where thinking ended and feeling began.

The Tinman had a brain and the scarecrow a heart...they were just missing the other peice which is why they didn't ask the wizard for both. In the end though they have them all.

[Susan9608]

I still see this whole argument as rationalization for an inconsistent and some what capricious approach to eating habits and values.

Berating someone for pulling branches off of a tree - fine. But what about paper products? Computer paper, toilet paper, stationary? Is everything in your world paperless? And what about all the trees chopped down to create space for crops to be raised to feed the animals raised for slaughter? What about *those* trees? Or are only some trees worthy of protection?

And it doesn't make much sense to me that if you value all life, as you say, that you'd do something like be a floral designer and cut down flowers - living flowers - just because they look beautiful for a while, even after they're dead. That seems more like valuing them in death, than valuing them in life.

It seems like you're basing what you value on how "lovable" it is to you ... you don't like to eat the things you love. That's your statement, anyways.

So that becomes not so much an issue of all life being equally valuable, as you first asserted, but of how much value each particular thing has to *you*. Human beings obviously more valuable than other animals/plants ... a certain tree more valuable than the millions destroyed for paper and farm land ... it's certainly a convenient system. Which is not to say that you don't truly believe this way ... I'm sure you do. But it seems a rather easy belief system; it's one that allows you to eat what you want and do what you want, as long as the things you're eating aren't the things you "love" most.

A lot of people will try to justify their meat consumption by claiming that both plants and animals are alive, thus there is no ethical difference between killing animals for food and killing plants. And their answer seems to be, "So then I can eat whatever I want, even though both groups are alive. I can kill them both!" I guess they feel that makes them not a hypocrite.

Perhaps I could buy it if these people were those fruitarian types - who eat only fruits, vegetables with seeds, and nuts. Then there's no taking of a life to eat. But any other way ... well, it just seems like the easy way out.

[Stephanae]

Originally Posted by Susan9608

And it doesn't make much sense to me that if you value all life, as you say, that you'd do something like be a floral designer and cut down flowers - living flowers - just because they look beautiful for a while, even after they're dead. That seems more like valuing them in death, than valuing them in life.

You nearly hit the nail on the head here. This is something I said in an earlier post on this thread:

Originally Posted by Stephanae

For me, it's just simpler to believe that all life has value. And that death is valuable for sustaining life. And to be grateful for both.

The most basic difference in our philosophies is not so much which kind of life we value. It's that I value death. I don't believe decreasing death rates is a good thing for any species. In fact, the single best thing we could do for our planet and all the plants and animals on it would be to decrease the human population by a very large percentage. Yet we spend billions of dollars trying to prolong the lives of people and other animals that would otherwise die naturally.

I'm not just saying that death is inevitable or natural, here. I'm saying that death is good. Suffering is bad, but death is good. Senseless killing is bad, but killing for sustenance to support the natural cycle is good, whether it's a porcupine doing it to a tree, a lion doing it to a gazelle, or a human doing it to either a spinach or a cow.

The only problem I have with paper is wasting it, because unlike you, I do believe in using dead things for human endeavors that seem good to me.

But I don't believe in doing it lightly. Ever. I believe in giving thanks to both the spinach and the cow for the life that sustains me, as well as to the tree for the paper I use to enhance human communication and understanding. If I could have my wish for what would be done with me after my death, it would be to be placed on the ground in a forest so that the carrion eaters and soil could benefit from my death as nature intended.

You can also say it's the easy way out if you'd like, but I would have to say, in that case, that you've never attempted to value death.

It's not that I base what has value on what I love. It's that I base what I cannot kill on it (not what I will not kill--what I will not kill is anything that I have no good reason to kill). That's because I'm human. I also value the human quality of love, so I'm okay with this inconsistency.

So yes, I do believe there is no ethical difference between killing animals and plants. Does that make me a hypocrite?

hyp-o-crite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


I don't think so. But of course, you may still.

[Stephanae]

Originally Posted by Char-x

I'm not jumping on you but I do think you are slightly contradicting yourself here because correct me if I'm wrong but all through the other posts I have had the impression you believe humans are the most important species, then plants then animals. You have put humans first because they show more complex emotions and their ability to think and be smart apparently outweighs other animals? You also say you believe all life in equally valuable but then go on to express humans are more important that animals etc...this isn't making sense.

I can see how it would seem that way, but what I have been trying to do is use those arguments as a negative example of why your arguments that animals are more important than plants don't make very much sense to me. In other words, I felt like we'd all agree that humans aren't more valuable than animals, so I was trying to show you how your same arguments that animals are more valuable than plants could be used that way or used to argue that some animals are more valuable than others. Does that make any sense?

Originally Posted by Char-x

The Tinman had a brain and the scarecrow a heart...they were just missing the other peice which is why they didn't ask the wizard for both. In the end though they have them all.

Actually, the Tinman had his head cut off, too. And the Scarecrow was entirely stuffed with straw. It's just that the Tinman valued emotion more and the Scarecrow valued intellect more. Of course, all through the book, it's demonstrated that they both already had in abundance what they valued most, they just didn't feel confident about it until the Wizard made them a "placebo" heart and brain.

[Stephanae]

Originally Posted by Percy's Mom

I don't believe I said that any of your opinions or feelings are ridiculous. You're certainly entitled to have them. The fact remains though, that while plants are alive, they do not have hearts and minds, and thusly do not have thoughts or feelings. The living done by a plant simply can not be equated to the living done by any animal, 2 or 4 legged, winged, finned, or otherwise. By your reasoning, if they could be considered equally, a vegan should feel as guilty about eating a broccoli stalk or portabello as an omnivore should eating a steak or chicken leg, and that makes no sense at all.

You didn't say my thoughts and feelings were ridiculous. You just ridiculed them. I'm no longer upset about it, but ridicule is a useful tactic in a debate only if you are trying to shut the other person down without any exchange of ideas.

Yes, by my reasoning, vegans would feel as guilty about eating broccoli as they would if they ate a steak. It does make sense to me. It's just that where you feel guilt, I feel gratitude to all of nature and to the specific lives sacrificed.

[Ly&Pigs]

Stephanae- you don't need to make 3 separate posts to reply to 3 people. You can do it in one post and quote each person you are responding to. There is a multi-quote feature that should allow you to do this.

[steve_and_pigs]

I'm a little slow. Is Stephanie's whole point that morally, there is no difference between killing a plant and an animal? Both are the same natural cycle of life?

Well, on the suffering side, she can certainly hold out with the idea that plants may feel horrible pain as animals do. It is an interesting idea, but not very compelling. She could argue that there is nothing immoral about causing suffering and pain in animals, as it is the natural way of things for prey animals to be killed for food. She is no different than the hawk or the tiger. These animals are certainly not immoral. I don't know what to think about these ideas. They have some merit. It is some kind of naturalism or something. I think this is a bit incompatible with the "humans are smarter, humans can choose to eat something else" ideas.

On the planet side, if were 1700, I would agree that there is no harm in eating animals. But today we are definitely making poor use of the planet's resources by farming so much meat. I think the planet can sustain a certain amount of farmed meat, but not the meat-fest of today. I can see a future world where meat is farmed within reason and is not destructive.

[hydrohoki]

Originally Posted by Stephanae

It's that I base what I cannot kill on it (not what I will not kill--what I will not kill is anything that I have no good reason to kill).

Is a pretty flower arrangement a good reason?

[Stephanae]

Originally Posted by Ly&Pigs

Stephanae- you don't need to make 3 separate posts to reply to 3 people. You can do it in one post and quote each person you are responding to. There is a multi-quote feature that should allow you to do this.

Oh, very cool feature. Thanks for pointing it out and I'm sorry I didn't notice it sooner!

Originally Posted by stephenlawrence

On the planet side, if were 1700, I would agree that there is no harm in eating animals. But today we are definitely making poor use of the planet's resources by farming so much meat. I think the planet can sustain a certain amount of farmed meat, but not the meat-fest of today. I can see a future world where meat is farmed within reason and is not destructive.

I'm sorry. I'm very weary of trying to explain my beliefs here. So, Stephen, if you'd really like a dialogue with me about your questions and statements in your post, please feel free to send me a private email. But I will say a little bit of something about the piece of your post that I quoted above.

I have stated only that I am not morally opposed to eating meat. In fact, eating limited amounts of meat is sacred ritual to me. However, I am very morally opposed to the horrific excesses and cruelties associated with the production of meat today. I'd say I agree with your statement above almost completely.

Originally Posted by hydrohoki

Is a pretty flower arrangement a good reason?

Since cutting flowers does not kill the plant, much like picking fruit, I never really had to ask myself this ethical question.

[HowietheGreat]

Hmmmm...well I'm not hindu and am most certainly not preaching the religion, but rather praising the stated philosophy. Surely no one can be offended by the state of awareness in all natural elements? Trust me, I would be the first to pounce on religious "swaying" here, something I'm certain our valued mods know about me.

[Char-x]

Originally Posted by Stephanea

I've also been a floral designer. All cut flowers are dead, but they retain their beauty for a while.

Originally Posted by Stephanea

Since cutting flowers does not kill the plant, much like picking fruit, I never really had to ask myself this ethical question.

But if the plant to you is much like an animal then surely cutting the flowers isn't exactly an ethical thing to do since you are obviously going to cut the flowers whilst they are at their best - which would be like cutting a Guinea Pigs toe nails at the quick. I can understand when plants begin to loose their leaves/flowers and they dye off getting rid of them, but if the plant feels like you believe I don't see how thats really ethical for you to do - does that make sense?

Originally Posted by Stephanea

I don't believe decreasing death rates is a good thing for any species. In fact, the single best thing we could do for our planet and all the plants and animals on it would be to decrease the human population by a very large percentage. Yet we spend billions of dollars trying to prolong the lives of people and other animals that would otherwise die naturally.

Vegetarians don't really decrease death rates in a sense, but the less demand there is for meat the less there is produced. We aren't pro-longing cows/chickens lives, infact by not meating eat they aren't being born - if that makes any sense what so ever. I'm not really sure though if this has anything to do with farming it's more to do with medicane if we are talking about pro-longing lives. If I've got it all wrong, like what you was trying to get at, please explain.

Originally Posted by Stephanea

It's not that I base what has value on what I love. It's that I base what I cannot kill on it (not what I will not kill--what I will not kill is anything that I have no good reason to kill). That's because I'm human. I also value the human quality of love, so I'm okay with this inconsistency.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here really? Could you explain it. You base what has value on what you cannot kill?

Originally Posted by Stephanea

I can see how it would seem that way, but what I have been trying to do is use those arguments as a negative example of why your arguments that animals are more important than plants don't make very much sense to me. In other words, I felt like we'd all agree that humans aren't more valuable than animals, so I was trying to show you how your same arguments that animals are more valuable than plants could be used that way or used to argue that some animals are more valuable than others. Does that make any sense?

It does but everyone has explained that even though it might not make sense to you we don't eat meat for various reasons but we can't live without consuming plants. It's impossible. Not only that but again the overwhelming evidence that plants do not feel emotions/pain seems to show us that it is okay to consume them. I'm sure, like you, many people here are also passionate about recycling etc.

Originally Posted by StephanLawrance

On the planet side, if were 1700, I would agree that there is no harm in eating animals. But today we are definitely making poor use of the planet's resources by farming so much meat. I think the planet can sustain a certain amount of farmed meat, but not the meat-fest of today. I can see a future world where meat is farmed within reason and is not destructive.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by HowietheGreat

Hmmmm...well I'm not hindu and am most certainly not preaching the religion, but rather praising the stated philosophy. Surely no one can be offended by the state of awareness in all natural elements? Trust me, I would be the first to pounce on religious "swaying" here, something I'm certain our valued mods know about me.

I think Buddists is who you mean. Buddists see value in all life forms be it a peice of mud or their brother and really really push for vegetarianism. Jainism though is the most strict. Hindu's don't really avoid meat, especially now-a-days. To me though, to be praise worthy people have to do something about their beliefs rather than just express them. Stephanea - if you do believe all life is equal then I think you would agree with vegetarianism and veganism - not necessarily being one but not arguing with it ethier, because it is atleast making some difference. If you do truely also value plants so much and animals alike then you prehaps you should be a Fruitarian? You say that all elements are equal, but you respect spinach more than chickens and consume both "elements" freely.

You're veiws and points are all very confusing and slightly contradicting. But prehaps its just me reading them wrong.

[Ly&Pigs]

No more talk of religion or I will start unapproving posts. Religious discussions are against the rules.

[Stephanae]

Char-x, thank you. I think you are really trying to understand me, so I'm going to try and explain once more. The first thing I think I need to tell you is that I can see how you would think some of my statements are contradictory, but I don't think it's because my statements actually are, I think it's because you've made some assumptions about my meaning that aren't quite correct.

I'm going to start with one at the end of your post that I find easiest to explain:

Originally Posted by Char-x

Stephanea - if you do believe all life is equal then I think you would agree with vegetarianism and veganism - not necessarily being one but not arguing with it ethier, because it is atleast making some difference.

I am actually not even sure why you think I'm arguing against veganism and vegetarianism, unless it's because you're so used to people arguing against it that you assume I am. I think people who disparage that choice or argue against it actually feel guilty about their meat-eating and are being defensive. I think it's a noble choice. I think all of those here who have made that choice (considering the state of meat production today) are doing a good thing for our planet, the life on it, and nature. I think it's cool that humans can choose their place on the food chain. The only thing I've been attempting to do is explain some of my personal reasons for not making the same choice. Not because I think any of you should change, but because I was hoping for some respect and understanding in return.

Originally Posted by Char-x

But if the plant to you is much like an animal then surely cutting the flowers isn't exactly an ethical thing to do since you are obviously going to cut the flowers whilst they are at their best - which would be like cutting a Guinea Pigs toe nails at the quick. I can understand when plants begin to loose their leaves/flowers and they dye off getting rid of them, but if the plant feels like you believe I don't see how thats really ethical for you to do - does that make sense?

What you're saying makes perfect sense, but I never said the plant was like the animal or that it felt pain like animals do. What I said was that when it came to death, I didn't think it mattered. All things must and should die at some point to support nature's order. When it comes to human cruelty, it matters very much. Pruning plants can be good for them, and I don't believe they feel pain. Cutting a Guinea Pig's toenails at the quick would be horrible, senseless cruelty.

Originally Posted by Char-x

Vegetarians don't really decrease death rates in a sense, but the less demand there is for meat the less there is produced. We aren't pro-longing cows/chickens lives, infact by not meating eat they aren't being born - if that makes any sense what so ever. I'm not really sure though if this has anything to do with farming it's more to do with medicane if we are talking about pro-longing lives. If I've got it all wrong, like what you was trying to get at, please explain.

You're right that my statement about spending billions to prolong life had more to do with human and veterinary medicine than with farming, although when I said that I didn't think decreasing death rates was necessarily a good thing, it was an indirect response to this statement from thalestral:

Originally Posted by thalestral

Added to that, to raise animals to be eaten on any level, factory farming or small scale, the animal must eat many times the amount of plant food that would sustain the humans that eat the animal. For this reason to, not eating animals helps to decrease the death of plants.

That said, I do believe in more efficient use of our planets resources, and so I don't disagree with thalestral's overall point. It's just that my goal would be efficient use of natural resources, rather than decreasing the death rate of plants.

Also, while I think decreasing birth rates in humans and farm animals whose populations have been unnaturally increased beyond what our planet can easily sustain is a good thing, the true way of natural selection, nature's true way is not to decrease birth rates, it's for death rates to exceed birth rates. As Annie Dillard said in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, "Nature is, above all, profligate."

Originally Posted by Char-x

I don't understand what you are trying to say here really? Could you explain it. You base what has value on what you cannot kill?

I try very hard to value all things in nature. I don't always succeed; for example, I have a very hard time with houseflies sometimes, but I try. I also try very hard not to kill any living thing without purpose, although I freely admit that what I might consider "a good reason" to kill a housefly or a weed in the garden is not necessarily the same as what I might consider "a good reason" to kill a sheep. I'm not sure I could bring myself to kill some of the things I love, like my children or friends or pets, even with an almost unimaginably good reason. (Have you ever read or seen Beloved?)

This whole spectrum of "good reasons" is why I truly understand the veg*an choice so well. It's a very short stretch for me from "it's okay to pull weeds in my garden because it protects the other plants I need for sustenance, but it's not okay to kill sheep unless it's for food" to "it's okay to eat plants but not animals." Very, very short. The thing that makes it okay to me to consume animals as well as plants is that I think death is so incredibly important to nature.

One of the things that disappoints me most about the human race is that on those extremely rare occasions when we (or one of our livestock animals) fall prey to another species, we hunt the "dangerous" animal down and kill it. How does this make sense? What rule book says that we shouldn't be part of our natural ecosystems and accept our natural losses like all other species?

Originally Posted by Char-x

It does but everyone has explained that even though it might not make sense to you we don't eat meat for various reasons but we can't live without consuming plants. It's impossible. Not only that but again the overwhelming evidence that plants do not feel emotions/pain seems to show us that it is okay to consume them. I'm sure, like you, many people here are also passionate about recycling etc.

I hope very much that it has become clear to you by now that your reasons for not consuming meat while consuming plants does make very good sense to me. It's just that, for me, it's just as important that things that feel emotions/pain die as it is that things that don't feel die. I understand your choice and think it's very reasonable. I just have made a different choice for reasons that also make sense to me.

I will say this: the animals I find it most morally acceptable to consume are those whose lives I've taken myself, like the chickens I described in my first post. It's easiest for me to honor the life's passing when I can't turn a blind eye to it and when I have to perform the uncomfortable act of taking it myself. I think those consumers who have never slaughtered their own meat live in an unnatural bubble world, and that those who are unwilling to bring the death themselves s