Talk:Ethics of eating meat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Ethics of eating meat has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives:

I have archived this rather long talk page. HighInBC 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Reads like a story or essay

This article is not written in the style of an encyclopedia reference. Rather it is written in the style one would expect from a college student's essay assignment for class. I recognize that a great deal of work has been done to search for various viewpoints on the subject and to be as unbiased as possible in making mention of those viewpoints, but that doesn't keep the work from being an essay. Perhaps some of this information could be merged with another topic such as Vegetarianism, and other parts may just not be useful for an encyclopedic reference at all.OfficeGirl 01:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The other articles are full which is why this subject split off into it's own article. The content is too large for a merge, so either this needs to be fixed or deleted.
I say we fix it. What specifically is wrong? How can the same content be layed out in a different style? HighInBC 00:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the major problem is that this is structured like a debate on the ethics of eating meat. Arguments are presented in favour and against, with rebuttals. Trouble is, debating is inherently POV - you can't argue a position without promoting a certain viewpoint. It's not saying "this is an overview of how society regards the ethics of eating meat;" it's saying "eating meat is unethical because... no, it's ethical because..." It's an argument masquerading as an article.
How to fix it? Try to recast it as an overview of how human society views the ethics of eating meat. Describe forms of vegetarianism and the reasons behind them. Describe why people eat meat, when they do, and the reasons why they believe it is not unethical. Perhaps touch on the various campaigns by groups on either side of the question (PETA, cattle ranchers, etc.) to promote their viewpoint.
The content that is in there can probably serve as a starting point, as long as it is referenced. (There's an awful lot of unsourced "some say... others think..." in this.)
I think a good first step would be to rework the lead. It starts "While many people have no ethical issues with eating meat, others object to the act of killing and eating an animal..." and then goes on to detail all sorts of reasons people have for not eating meat. If this article were entitled "Ethics of vegetarianism" that would be fine. However, if it going to be a balanced overview, the lead needs to be less weighted to one side of the argument. Eron 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It was The ethics of vegetarianism, the title was changed because the idea that being vegetarian is unethical is uncommon, the article is about if eating meat is ethical. I don't really understand your last paragraph, why do you think it is slanted and in which way? HighInBC 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't infer from a title like "Ethics of vegetarianism" that vegetarianism is in some way, or by some people, considered unethical. Ethics is a neutral term relating to "the study of value or quality... concepts such as right, wrong, good, evil, and responsibility." I would expect an article on the ethics of eating meat to describe the moral arguments and various points of view on the subject, without taking a position one way or the other.
Regarding the lead, there is half a sentence stating that many people have no objections to the practice, and then the rest of the paragraph detailing reasons why they should or explaining the opposite view. From the start, it reads like an essay on why I shouldn't eat meat. It doesn't introduce the topic in a neutral fashion.
I know, I know, if I don't like it I can edit it. I may try, if I can find the time. But it is a hard thing to edit for neutrality - not because the case one way or the other is so strong, but just because it's hard to describe and explain moral positions without taking one.Eron 20:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your point of view. This is what I have done with this article: Before, After. The difference is extensive. I have of course done much since. I certainly agree any attempt to make this article more neutral.

I think a complete rewrite to a different style would be good to. I would do it, but I did the last re-write, and one of your objections is the style I used. That is okay, I am not the best writer in the world, and welcome improvements to my contributions. HighInBC 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does not give references for the importance of this topic, how it has affected actual events

The bulk of this article is a recounting of differing opinions in a debate-style format. (not encyclopedic) Have any of these theories changed the policies of any government entity, whether country-wide, state, province, local or municipal? Have any of these theories changed the behavior of any major, national or multi-national corporations? Have any of these theories inspired documented acts of vandalism, theft, interference with trade, boycotts or protests that were so dramatic that they forced businesses to stop functioning for a time? What about groups like PETA and the like and some of their controversial actions that have been covered in the news for many, many years-- some of those most certainly dealt with the issue of using animals for food, yes? I am not saying that this topic should be deleted, just that it really needs a LOT more work, and I think it would be more informative to people who never heard of the topic before if those who are knowledgable rolled up their sleeves and really worked on it! OfficeGirl 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It does need alot more work. HighInBC 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Slanted Debate

It is clear to see that one or more persons have put in a great deal of time to really, really try to present opposing viewpoints as fairly as they could. I do not see any malicious intent here at all. But the vast majority of sources cited are pro-vegetarian, and the overall tone of the article still leans in the direction of attempting to persuade readers to the vegetarian viewpoint. More references from the non-vegetarian side would really help with that problem, as would cleaning up the language used to describe the vegetarian sources. OfficeGirl 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps references to credible arguments in favour of eating animals are hard to come by simply because no such arguments have ever been given. It seems to me absurd to try to give a "balanced" point of view on all subjects. What is the balanced point of view on the debate round Earth vs. flat Earth? The only real support for the practice of eating animals is tradition and bias. David Olivier 07:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid policy on the neutral point of view doesn't support that: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Given the large proportion of humanity that eats meat on a regular basis, I don't really think that support for meat-eating can be considered a "minority view" that doesn't merit balanced coverage. The very well-referenced entry on humans notes that "Humans are animals who can consume both plant and animal products. Most biologists agree humans are omnivorous.[22] A minority believes they are an anatomically carnivorous species, and have started using agriculture (non-animal based) foodstuffs only recently.[23] Another minority believes that anatomically, they are primarily herbivorous, many members of which have begun consuming food of animal origin.[24]" Eron 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't say that the view that it is ethical to eat animals shouldn't be covered. It is just that one cannot complain that the article is biased just because no credible arguments have been found supporting one side - as OfficeGirl seemed to be doing. If, as it seems, among the billions of animal-eaters the only arguments that can be found justifying their practice are "Ah well we've always done it", or some variation such as "humans are omnivorous", or perhaps "God said it was OK to eat animals", then it's not the fault of the article if nothing more credible is presented. In other words, it is not Wikipedia's task to invent arguments where there are none, or to make it appear that one side has credible arguments when it does not. David Olivier 13:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Odd, when I redid this article I did have trouble finding citing the pro veg arguement, as most references are not reliable sources and are heavily baised. The ones I found pro-meat seemed more scientific in generel.
Regardless, see a problem, fix it. You can look for more citations if the lack of them bothers you. As for being slanted, can you be specific? HighInBC 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a slant in the scope. It seems a bit arbitrary to determine an animal worthy of protection from being killed as food based solely on whether some people perceive that animal as sentient (even with the sited source). An anti-vegan (note I didn't say "pro meat eating") point is that the only animals which are considered off the "eat" list are ones that we as human identify with, rather than some logical point of differentiation. Bottom line of this reasoning is that all life feeds off of other life to sustain itself, and it’s been that way for billions (not 2.5 million) of years. Bottom line of my comment here is that this article would be well served by adding more detail to the discussion as to why some animals are ok to eat and not others, as suggested by the scope.Fcsuper 06:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see your point. There is an argument that being sentient is a necessary and sufficient condition for having interests (see Peter Singer's Animal Liberation). That is not about "identifying" with the animal. (Though of course it is impossible to "identify", i.e. put oneself in the paws of, a non-sentient entity.)
Perhaps your point is that sentience as such does not exist, and it is just a matter of "some people" perceiving you as sentient. Well, if that is your point, it is debateable, to say the least. I believe, for instance, that you are (probably) sentient, as a fact; not as just some (relativistically defined) "point of view" or "perception" of mine.
Anyway, that animal sentience is a fact (and not a relativistically defined "perception") is a basic tenet of the ethical argument against eating animals. Does that not satisfy your request for a "logical point of differentiation"? Again, you may well hold that sentience is not a fact, and perhaps include that point as an argument against ethically compulsory vegetarianism, but that doesn't make the article in itself "slanted".
As for the fact that the violence of predation has been going on for a long time (perhaps 700 million years, since it seems the first animals, presumably the first sentient creatures, appeared around then), that is one of the vacuous arguments I cited above. Well, perhaps it actually is the strongest "argument" that can be found in favour of eating animals...
David Olivier 11:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The recognition of sentience is not factual. It has to do with the recognition of traits we associate with being humanlike. How do we know one way or another that the human experience itself is evidence of sentience? We only have a certain limited level of awareness ourselves, which can be significant in limiting out ability to recognize sentience in other life forms. Who's to say that the tubeworm is not the most sentient animal on the planet, but humans are unable to recognize it solely because we can't relate to its experience? This is why sentience may be considered an arbitrary point, making the scope slanted. ALSO, as mentioned elsewhere here, not all vegetarians use sentience as their qualifier. Which means, the scope is not just vegetarians slated, it's a particular group or person's POV, an not representative of pro-vegetarians everywhere. Different groups have different reasons for setting limitations on what foods they eat. No one hard and fast rule exists that covers all of those perspectives, nor are the perspectives fee from being debated (as you've assumed the "sentient" qualifier to be).Fcsuper 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


It tastes good, and it is good for me, my teeth are designed for it, we evolved doing it. I would not say that you have found the strongest arguement for eating animals. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, I forgot, "it tastes good". That argument really carries the day in favour of eating animals!
Actually, it does. You are mocking an extremely valid point based on nothing more than emotion. Our tastes have evolved to prefer particular foods over others because of the value of those foods to our body's systems. For example, sugar doesn't taste good because its sweet. It tastes good because we've evolved a preference for sweetness due to the high energy value sweet foods tend to offer us. Other animals who have evolved on different diets don't necessarily have a preference for sweetness, but instead some other foods that best suit their biological makeup.Fcsuper 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Rape feels so good! (Er... for one of the two participants, let's say.) And none of us would be here if it haden't been for rape (statistically, at least one of your ancestors in the last ten or fifteen generations was born from rape); we evolved doing it.
Are there really no other arguments than those in favour of eating animals? If so, don't complain that this page may seem "biased"!
David Olivier 15:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not twist my arguement into immoral acts using ideas that I never brought up. I notied you picked that arguement out of the several I provided. Also, I am sure the human race would have made it without rape. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
My comparison was on two of your points: "it tastes good" and "we evolved doing it". If those arguments don't make rape moral, they don't make eating animals moral. You cannot just beg the question, saying that the comparison doesn't hold because rape is immoral and eating animals is not.
That the human race might have made it without rape is: 1. irrelevant and 2. in need of some support, to say the least! In any case, my point was that you wouldn't be here without rape (nor would anyone of us). So an argument such as "don't criticize X, because without X you wouldn't be here" is absurd. (I myself wouldn't be here without Hitler; does that mean I cannot criticize Hitler?)
As for your "my teeth are designed for it", it takes us back to the pre-Darwinian times where people thought that our bodies necessarily were "designed" for something.
David Olivier 16:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think what I failed to get accross was that your rape comparison is off topic, I don't see the connection. Eating meat and rape are not related to each other in such a way that an ethical comparison can be made like that. If it is, then I don't see how. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The ethical comparison is the one I stated: the arguments you give in support of eating animals can also be given in support of rape (and other forms of unethical conduct). David Olivier 17:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that stating that the arguements can be applied to rape does not mean anything in relation to my point. For this to mean anything both acts would have to be similair in ethical reprecussions. Different acts require different levels of justification. Saying something justifies stealing, does not mean the same justification can be applied to murder. You are applying unrealistic ethical porportions to my arguement. I was not argueing in favor of rape, but eating meat, so to apply my arguement to rape is a fallacy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. If you assume that raping a human and killing a non-human are of vastly different "ethical proportions", you have a point. It's just that that assumption is precisely what the debate about the ethics of eating meat is about. Those who oppose eating animals believe (at least, many do) that speciesism is wrong, and that those acts are of similar (if not identical) ethical importance. You cannot just answer that meat has been eaten for millions of years, and that it tastes good. To do so is flippant at the very least. David Olivier 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I certainly think that eating meat is vastly different in ethical porportions than raping a person, to the point that I don't even think it is worth mentioning. What's more I think the vast majority of people would agree with this point. Regardless, the arguement that eating meat natural is already in the article, as is a rebuttal similair to yours. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
David, give it up. The rape thaing is so far off topic that you might as well be talking about what life does in alternate universes or what people eat in heaven. You are sentinent enough to know the point is unrelated and only made to have an emotional impact, and you know we are sentinent enough to know that you know this.Fcsuper 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I certainly see Fcsuper's point. The article is titled "Ethics of eating meat," which would suggest a broad survey of the ethical aspects of this practice. The article itself, however, is simply a debate between the eat-meat / don't-eat-meat camps. I don't see a reflection of the broad spectrum of cultural and social attitudes. What about different types of vegetarianism? What about the fact that many meat-eaters still have cultural taboos against certain kinds of meat? What about religious practices that mandate a certain way of slaughtering animals and preparing and consuming their meat? This is potentially a huge topic that could range well beyond the humans-should-eat-meat-oh-no-they-shouldn't that is currently the bulk of the page. Eron 15:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to your planned expansion. It sounds like it will really add to the article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I wouldn't call it a my 'planned expansion'. While I think the points I raised would be a valuable contribution, I'm not sure when I would be able to actual make the necessary rewrites. But I'll keep thinking about it. Eron 18:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhhh. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

All of the above illustrates my concerns with the article as it is currently laid out. The argument-rebuttal structure makes it look like a debate, which invites editors to take a position for or against when they make a contribution. I think it would look much more neutral if we just scrapped all the 'rebuttal' sections. Have an intro section presenting the fact that there are a number of ethical questions surrounding the consumption of meat, and that the most prominent one is whether its consumption is ethical at all. Then detail the arguments that people have made for one side. Then the other. Then describe a few of the other ethical questions: degrees of vegetarianism, and how people ethically justify their position on the line between carnivore and vegan; cultural and religious ethical views regarding what meat can and cannot be eaten and why, etc.

I'd dive right in and start by cutting the rebuttals myself, but that's major surgery on what is obviously a contentious article, so I'd like to know what others think first. Eron 23:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just be sure to move all the information you remove to somewhere else(Unless it is uncited/against policy). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I cleaned up up all the references so they all use the same footnote method. That is the first step, the next step I will do is go through them all and make sure the article text is supported by the citation. I hope somebody who knows the various ref templates can unify the format further, I am not so familiar with those. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments why eating meat is ethical

Under the Health section it says that studies have found soy and/or soy products to be carcinogenic, but in the rebuttal part it does not address this. Could someone research this and explain? Lue3378 01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, right beside that sentence is a footnote leading to this page [1]. I notice at the bottom they had links to rebuttals, so perhaps those rebuttal references can be used for our rebuttals. I will work on that later if nobody else does. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question

I was reading this and a random thought popped into the ol' noggin. This debate always centers on the question of whether or not eating meat is ethical, yet it never touches on whether or not eating plants is. After all, plants are alive, and we do massacre billions, probably more - I don't have an exact figure on the death toll - every day. What makes the life of an animal that much more important than a plant? Forget speciesist(spelled?), its all kingdomist propaganda! jankyalias 1:30 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The simple answer to your question is, that is not the subject of the article. Just as an article on oranges does not talk alot about apples, the same goes here. I wonder if there are enough sources to demonstrate the notability of the controversy of eating vegetables? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Jank, if you've noted my comments above on this discussion page, you may find that I'm in agreement with you. However, my concerns where stated in the context of considering assumptions made under the Scope section, not a general rebuttal of the Vegan POV. I agree with HighInBC not including your general point to the article. Fcsuper 01:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The simple answer is that plants lack a nervous system, but like HighInBC said, the question is irrelevant for this page. Deleuze 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleuze, studies have been done that show plants have the capability to react to specific events in their enviroment. If the point about nervous systems is brought up, this should also be noted (with sources, of course). Fcsuper 01:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I propose a major revision to the entire article. I think most of us dont realize that nearly every single person on this planet has some taboos about eating meat. Sure, nearly everybody eats chicken, but what about things like horses and dogs? And if eating meat is ethical, what's wrong with cannibalism? This could be a really great article but it needs a lot of work. I think it would be much easier to read if the article was divided into broader subjects such as:

Religious aspects

Health pros and cons

Evolutionary studies

Economic aspects

Morality

Much of the article, pros and cons, needs to be removed. Unless somebody argues otherwise I'm going to get rid of the Dennis Leary quote. It's clever but I'm afraid Leary is a commedian and not an evolutionary scientist. I'm also going to remove:

  • The "animal" in "animal liberation" and "animal rights" refers to all and only those beings that meet the interest requirement. The phrase "sentient being" or "sentient animal" is sometimes employed to make this reference (...). Thus the criterion for being an "animal", in this moral sense, is not the biological criterion that distinguishes fauna from flora. Nor are animal liberationists confused about this, since most of them readily acknowledge that very probably not all biological animals have interests and, consequently, cannot have moral rights.

I'm not really sure why this is in the scope section. And since animals without interests don't have moral rights (opinion) wouldn't that mean that animals with interests do have moral rights? This needs to be cleared up, I'm not sure what point it's trying to make. I'm going to wait until I get some feedback before I start doin any major editing. Namaste --Calibas 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote from dennis leary can be removed, I added it a long time ago, I agree now he is underqualified to make such a claim. The other poorly worded section only confuses me and I also endorse it's deletion. Regarding since animals without interests don't have moral rights (opinion) wouldn't that mean that animals with interests do have moral rights?, I don't think we have to worry about such things. As we are limited to opinions that are already published by reliable sources we don't have to make any such moral decisions ourselves. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Might we consider renaming this article or actually, I'm in favor of deleting it completely. It seems to be covering a social consideration on the topic, rather than a particular discrete topic of its own. For example, animal rights comments should go under an Animal Rights article, Vegetarianism remarks should be in a Vegetarianism article, and the evolution section should perhaps be a sub-article under evolution under a title like "Evolution of Carnivorism" or "Evolution of Omnivorism", etc, etc. I just see that "Ethics of eating meat" as it stands exists as a provocative patchwork of topics, and not as a notable article by its own right. Thoughts?
You say you want to rename it but you have not suggested a name. As for deleting the article, I disgree, but you are welcome to nominate it for AfD. I am not sure how the subject Ethics of eating meat is not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Respectivefully, I just said how it is not. As the article stands, this is a patchwork of topics, not a topic by its own right. Point for point, the article is fairly well sourced. But the fact that the article is "point for point" makes it on the whole more social commentary than its own discrete topic. The fact the two main sections of this article are titled "Arguments for..." "Arguments against..." is a big clue to that. Even the current name is a bit awkward for a "neutral" article. It's not like that topic would appear in Encyclopedia Brittannica, even in the drawn out Macropedia portion (and even if it did, the article wouldn't resemble what's here now). The primary purpose of this article appears to promote Vegan/Vegatarian ideas, with mitigation brought up by those of opposing view. Well, those remarks should fall under their respective articles, not mashed together in a point-counterpoint discussion.Fcsuper 01:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
There has been some discussion further up the page of some of the very issues you raise. I agree (and have said myself before) that the point-counterpoint structure is problematic. But I think these are reasons to improve the article, and I believe those improvements are progressing, albeit slowly. I think Calibas made some very good suggestions a few entries back. Overall, I think there is a place in Wikipedia for a balanced exploration of the current thinking on the ethics of eating meat (or conversely, of being a vegetarian). People make the decision to do so, or not to do so, for a wide variety of reasons, and they place themselves on a wide range of positions along a spectrum starting at veganism and progressing to panda sandwiches. The article doesn't have to confine it self to a strict meat/no-meat argument. How do people decide that fish is okay, but not chicken? Or chicken, but not cow? Or cow, but not dog? Or... There's a lot of scope here. It's a complicated topic and I think getting to a great article will take time and consideration, but hey - there is no deadline. -Eron 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, ok. I am interested in what you come up with. :) It seems to me that this is part of the larger topic of whether or not to use animals to serve any humans needs whatsoever. Once I came to that realization, I started reconsiderating whether this article was even appropriate in any form. The more I look at this article, the more it seems unworkable. I've thought about how to improve it myself, but always come back to the point that this is not a topic like California where you can have a list of sourced facts, but it's more like "When to wear white clothes". There's no clear way to address it without getting bogged down in opinion. Even the use of the word "Ethics" can be highly subjective. As stated above, it would be better to put the facts that are included in this article in with the topics where they apply and leave it at that. IMO, that would serve best to make wiki neutral on the topic. If you look up vegatarianism, you'll see facts about that genre. Why have a separate article that repeats that information in the context of ethics over the general practice of meat eating? That's not factual or neutral. It's philosophical.Fcsuper 00:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious opposition

The section on the views of Christianity and Judaism regarding eating meat was deleted. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the entry that was deleted that's a matter of interpretation. The Bible verses are direct quotes, for example. I could believe that there is dispute over the matter - because people can dispute over just about anything - but I'm not personally aware of any. I'd like to revert the section, and invite the person (or whoever!) who deleted it to either add text explaining the dispute, or to discuss it here if they really feel it's wrong. Waitak 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. If there's some arguement over the meaning of the verses we should talk about it in the article, not simply remove the quotes. I'm going to revert it back. --Calibas 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

I have added referenced data for global animal consumption. These figures are from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization; they are stated in metric tonnes rather than number of animals consumed, so I have removed the previous statement about 60 billion land animals per year eaten for food. (Which, if the UN FAO's figure of 220 million tonnes is correct, means each animal produced about seven pounds of meat. I'm thinking that 60 billion was a slight overstatement - even allowing for the fact that, globally, we eat many more chickens than cows.) I've also added an annual tonnage figure for fish and other aquatic life. I only skimmed through the first report I referenced, Livestock's long shadow, but I think it might be useful for putting some hard referenced facts to other claims in the article - particularly on the no-meat-thanks side of the ledger. - Eron Talk 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your research. However, your edit replaces a figure about the number of individual animals concerned by one about the weight of their flesh. That is much less relevant in ethical terms.
The 60 billion figure is, I believe, approximately correct - perhaps a slight overstatement, as you say, perhaps not. Yes, it would be better to source it. However, I propose to leave it in, with an "reference needed" tag, and put your figures about the tonnage of meat in a footnote. Also, I believe it is true that there exist no figures at all concerning the number of individual fish killed; the only statistics are in tonnes. That too should be indicated in a footnote.
David Olivier 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that I agree that the absolute number of animals consumed is more significant, ethically, than the quantity of meat. That meat all comes from animals; if one takes a moral position against killing animals for their meat, then surely even one is too many. Two hundred and twenty million tonnes is a massive quantity - it's equivalent to something like the weight of three billion people. I do think that the number of animals is more significant from an advocacy point of view; it puts a human (er, scratch that, animal) face on the scale of consumption.
I am not opposed to including a number of animals, but there needs to be a source for it. Some earlier editor inserted 60 billion; where did that number come from? I could probably extrapolate from the FAO figures, which break down meat consumption into pork, poultry, and beef, by applying some average weight of meat per type of animal, but that would be heading into original research territory. - Eron Talk 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who put in the 60 billion figure. True, I don't have any source that says precisely that. However, if you put various figures together, you get to something like that. I don't think that just plain adding numbers counts as "original research"!

For starters, you have this page by CIWF that states that nearly 46 billion broiler chickens are reared annually in the world. That page doesn't itself give sources, but I think CIWF can count as trustworthy at least on such matters. Statistics for France for all animals can be found on the statistics site of the French agriculture ministry; counting all kinds of birds, small mammals (rabbits...), pigs, cows, etc. you get about 1.1 billion animals slaughtered every year in France (1/100th of world population). Again, that suggests something of the order of 60 billion worldwide. I had also found statistics for the US, but I dont remember the link (probably easy to find).

All in all, if no more precise sources are found, the wording of the sentence should probably be modified to recognize that the 60 billion figure is just an order of magnitude.

However, I feel that it is important to keep such an indication about numbers. I don't see what you mean when you say that the number is not significant. You can be opposed to the murder of humans, and believe that even one murder is too many, but still recognize that mass murder is not the same as one murder. That is what "scope" is about - giving an idea of the scope of the ethical problem. It is true that, depending on your ethical system, you may believe that killing some animals is ethically more serious than killing others; that killing a chimpanzee is worse than killing a mouse, for instance. So the ethical significance of numbers is not precise. It is more precise, however, than stating the number of pounds of meat, which, in itself, has no ethical significance whatever.

David Olivier 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that the number of animals killed for meat was not ethically significant; I stated that I did not find it more significant than the volume of meat thus harvested. I can see from a figure like 220 million tonnes that we are not talking about a few chickens and cows - that obviously represents a vast quantity of living creatures.
I'm reluctant to include a global figure that is extrapolated. I agree that simple math shouldn't count as original research (and if it does, I'm guilty, having converted raw census population data to percentages in other articles). However, going from "France slaughters 1.1 billion animals" through "France is about 1% of the world's population" to get to "the world probably kills about 60 billion animals" requires a number of assumptions and approximations that go beyond simple math.
As I said, I'm not opposed to a well-referenced head count. Perhaps the article could state "Figures for the total number of animals slaughtered to harvest this quantity of meat are not compiled on a global basis. However, country-by-country figures give some sense of the scale. In France alone, approximately 1.1 billion animals are killed for food each year.(REF) The CIWF estimates that 46 billion broiler chickens are reared globally each year.(REF)"
That would give a picture of the overall scale, without straying from verifiable numbers. - Eron Talk 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source Rebuttals

Many of the rebuttals seem to attack straw men, and naturally, those are unsourced for the most part. I don't know if this is giving me a fair assessment of the ethics of vegetarianism, because the "Some would argue" and "Some have said" phrases seem kinda sketchy. Anyone agree with this? 146.151.23.123 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farming plants harms animals

There's a huge problem with this section. First, it has nothing to do with the ethics of eating meat it simply states that our method of harvesting vegetables kills animals. According to Davis:

"Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn." [2]

That's IF we switch to ruminant-pasture. Nowhere is it said that everybody going vegan would kill less animals than our current model of food production. This is simply an arguement that a ruminant-pasture model would kill less animals than fully vegan one. Since we don't use a ruminant-pasture model, then wouldn't we kill less animals by going vegan? So there's an arguement for either going vegan or switching to a ruminant-pasture model. Still can't find anything about why it's right or wrong to eat meat. He does seem to imply that killing animals is wrong and we want to kill as few as possible. Secondly, his facts are questionable. Let's do the math: 1.8 billion animals killed from a fully vegan diet taking away the 300 million fewer killed annually according to his ruminant-pasture model leaves us with 1.5 billion animals, the total number that would be killed according to his model. 1.5 billion animals divided by 300 million people living in the US leaves us with 6 animals per person. So if we switch to ruminant-pasture farming and all eat 6 animals or less a year we'll kill less animals that if we all go vegan, according to his data. His agricultural model may make more sense than the one we have now but it doesn't mean it's right or wrong to eat meat. --Calibas 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Just stumbled across this page and find all the arguments fascinating. Anyway, the Davis argument seems relevant because it highlights potential problems with using the principle of least harm as a justification for not eating meat. Davis doesn't himself directly address whether it's right or wrong to eat meat, but if Singer and his philosophical basis is going to be mentioned, this argument would seem relevant.
I'm not sure what you're finding questionable. He's saying switching to a beef and dairy diet (utilizing the ruminant-pasture model) would minimize animal deaths. Six cows a year is a lot, and you would also have the dairy products. One steer can feed an average family for most of a year. link to calculate the meat on a cow I suppose the subtle point here is that in an ethical framework like in the minimize harm argument, a frog's death is equivalent to that of a cow. But killing one cow can feed a small family for a long time, while many frogs, etc., are killed in harvesting crops. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/t/h/Talk%7EEthics_of_eating_meat_9861.html"