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.
To-do list for Ethics of eating meat: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Remove unsourced arguments
  • Reference where needed
  • Possible arguments against (sources needed)
    • Development of antibiotic resistant bacteria in animals given antibiotics to promote growth
    • Greatly lessened risk of food poisoning from meat and animal products
Priority 4

Archives:

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

Contents

[edit] What's wrong with this health information?

The following has been removed due to the apparent inadequacy of the citation.

"

  • Studies have shown that vegetarian kids grow taller and have higher IQs than their classmates, and they are at a reduced risk for heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and other diseases in the long run.(Citation)
  • Vegetarians and vegans live, on average, six to 10 years longer than meat-eaters.(Citation)

"

The page that these claims cite gives its own reference to its sources, and therefore I fail to see what is necessarily lacking. Please elaborate on the issue.

I don't think the person who wrote that page knows much about nutrition: "Vegetarian foods provide us with all the nutrients that we need, minus the saturated fat, cholesterol, and contaminants found in meat and dairy products". Saturated fat and cholesterol are essential nutrients and found in vegetables, just less saturated fat and the healthy kind of cholesterol. There's plenty of info online about the health benefits of going vegetarian, I'm sure we can find better references. Also, this is a page about the ETHICS of eating meat. If a vegetarian diet is more healthy how does this make eating meat moral or immoral? --Calibas 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[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)
And I'm sure the human race would have (and still can) make it without eating meat. 68.42.113.38 05:11, 28 December 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)
This article is still pretty far from being encyclopediatic. I don't know. It just seems out of place, per my previous comments; none of which has been addressed with edits to the article. Fcsuper 01:05, 7 March 2007 (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)
Also of note: What about the debated effects of soy protien, or rather of Phytoestrogens on Estrogen levels in the body. Wouldn't that be of interest to someone (Say, a bodybuilder) considering a soy diet? Should it be covered, or should a re-direct to the [this] be enough?--Amishexmachina 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[2] Asian men and women have significantly lower cancer rates and consume much more soy that the west. Also of note, though it doesn't relate to this page, is that hormone replacement therapy is now thought to be one of the major factors in breast cancer. And something that does relate to this page is that saturated fat has been linked to high cancer rates, heart disease and various other health problems. --Calibas 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Something that deserves mention along with the carcinogenicity of soy foods is that of meat, especially when prepared in manners such as grilling. Some of this information can be found in the meat article. 68.42.113.38 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


I would like some statistics on the percentage of individuals that worry/are concerned with the ethics of eating meat. I would also like a statistic individuals that are vegetarians because of the ethics of eating meat (as compared to those that do it for health reasons, etc.).

[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)
Jank, I would argue that the capacity of most animals to suffer and the awareness they have of their condition separates them (in general) from plants, fungi, and other kingdoms of organisms. In addition, the effect one animal's death/suffering could potentially have upon another animal (as in relationships, although most animals don't experience these) is far greater than what the death of one plant could do to another plant. I liken this argument to humans; even in the absence of the ability to suffer and be aware (as in persons with Congential Analgia or who are in a persistent vegetative state), a person's death or mistreatment could very likely have a negative impact on other people. Also, the death or abuse of a non-human animal (such as a household pet) could prove devastating to those who were emotionally attatched to the animal. In both cases, the unnecessary negative effects of an animal's death/suffering not only upon the animal itself, but also upon others is a very significant argument against the actions necessary for eating meat. Plants generally fail to meet such qualifications, as plants are not conscious of pain or that of other plants anywhere near the extent to which animals are. Spinnick597 05:52, 28 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." [3]

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)
The part I find questionable is that his ruminant-pasture model is a purely hypothetical situation. As it currently stands we kill more animals for food than we do harvesting crops, so according to the least harm principle I should go vegetarian. Yes, a ruminant-pasture model would kill fewer animals, but that's not the way the world currently works.
I think the only part of his research that really applies to this page is the fact that our method of harvesting crops kills animals. --Calibas 02:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yet another pro-meat argument

they do it to us all the time, so it is only fair that we do it too. (they probably find us yummy too, what with recidivist man-eaters). 5000 years ago, it is likely as many animals ate people as people ate animals. --ti 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that an ethical argument. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
could be construed as one on the lines of fairness and tit-for-tat and all that. --ti 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This argument is essentially covered in Ethics_of_eating_meat#No_moral_responsibility.2C_no_rights, that section essentially says that since we do not expect animals to treat humans morally, they should not get any moral benefits either. Feel free to expand that section.--Hq3473 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
What about perpetuating the food chain? This has nothing to do with fairness or justice. It has to do with survival. Humans can choose to adopt different diets, but those who choose not to are simply following the natural order. Animals eat us all the time because they are driven to do so for survival. Taste is not the point either. --218.186.9.5 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farming animals keeps them alive

Ahahaha. Is it me or is this section too funny. Large scale conversion to vegetarianism may put livestock "out of business" but wording it as "We eat them because we care for their survival" is just too funny. --Dodo bird 10:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that cows cannot live in the wild, they are a purpose bred species that has no real place in nature. If we stop eating meat then who is going to pay to take care of them? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Is that an ethical argument for eating meat? "Eating meat is ethical because if we stop eating meat, we have to spend a lot of money to keep the cows alive." Does it follow? Maybe you can word it to make more sense. It's similarly absurd if you argue from a species conservation point of view. "Eating meat is ethical because if we stop eating meat, the species die out?" It's so absurd that I wonder if any prominent non-nutcase pro meat person use this argument?
And we really should change "why eating meat is ethical" to "why eating meat is not unethical". They are not quite the same. --Dodo bird 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But if we stop eating meat the species will die out. Practical concerns need to be taken into account in ethics. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Mode of death? Spontaneous internal combustion? If we stop eating meat, we won't have a commercial reason to breed them. But we will breed them for whatever reason that makes us (and you) not want them to die out.
I think the scope of the article goes beyond ethics of eating meat and we should farm out all the irrelevant information to related articles like Food, Meat, Veganism, Vegetarianism, Industrial agriculture, Taboo food and drink etc and make appropriate linkings. Alternatively we can find a more all encompassing article name like Animals as Food, add a bunch of info regarding animals as food(duh), borrowing from Food, Meat etc and having a section on ethical considerations. --Dodo bird 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Mode of death would be neglect, understand that domesticated animals are not capable of surviving without human help. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Neglect them, they die. Let's assume that is true. Does it follow that not eating meat leads to neglect and death for the meat species? --Dodo bird 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Umm, are you going to take care of the millions of cows the suddenly have no commercial value? Ya, if we don't eat the meat, they will probably have to be killed. The only reason they exist is for food, and without huge commercial support, the species cannot survive. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The world is not going to turn vegetarian overnight. Supply change to meet demand. Demand dwindle, supply dwindle. But that is irrelevant. You answered yes by making the assumption that Man see no reason to keep them alive for research/biodiversity/our amusement etc, that Man will see no ethical issue in neglecting and letting them die after deciding that it is not ethical to eat meat. --Dodo bird 19:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
A few may survive for research/biodiversity/our amusement, but these species were created for food and are kept alive primarily for that purpose. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So the species won't die out if we stop eating them. What happens to the "farming animals keeps them alive" argument then? --Dodo bird 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because an argument does not apply to a few animals in exceptional circumstances does not mean the argument is invalid, what about all the other animals not going to zoo's and research? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So the argument is about keeping alive not the species but individual animals? Lets assume they all die. Gasp. That wouldn't happen if everyone ate meat, would it?
Why don't we do this the easy way? Find a source for the argument or it goes. --Dodo bird 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where all this arguments have come from?

Errr... guys... Where all this arguments have come from? What is the reason for them to be here? Personally, I think I can come up for much better arguments but as they are only mine I don't think they should be on Wikipedia (or should they?). If that's the case, then I'll gladly add some. --Taraborn 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to, if you cite them, you are also welcome to remove uncited information from the existing article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh my...

Where is there proof of ANYTHING in here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Migospia (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

The References section is how we verify the article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health Section

Whoever wrote the first line in the Health section didn't check the reference very carefully. It simply states that rats given extra choline have healthier brains. Choline is found in beef liver and egg yolk, but also in large amounts in soy, iceberg lettuce, peanuts and cauliflower.

The second line, about omega-3 fatty acids, fails to mention why some fish have such high levels of omega-3. It's because they eat plants high in omega-3. There's plenty of plants that have high levels of omega-3 fatty acids that humans have easy access to.

The B-12 section should be kept but it should mention that while you cant get B-12 from plants, you cant get it from animals either. B-12 only comes from bacteria. The brand of Kombucha I drink has bacteria colonies inside and, according to the FDA, has plenty of B-12. Plus, you can get B-12 from cheese, you dont need to eat meat.

The next part: "The belief that it is not healthy to abstain from meat, and that abstaining from meat during pregnancy could harm a child, could outweigh ethical consideration for animals." Duh. This really doesn't say anything and I'm curious as to who is making this arguement. This belief does outweigh the ethical consideration for many people who eat meat, but is the belief true?

Lastly, the part about soy. Even if soy was deadly poisonous, why would this make eating meat ethical? Cant I be a vegetarian and not eat soy?

Seems to me that this section is either an arguement for eating meat or a well balanced vegetarian diet. --Calibas 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ecological Thermodynamics

I've edited this paragraph:

Biological thermodynamics demonstrates that regardless of the style of cultivation, animals being consumers in the ecological pyramid, are bound to transfer only around 10% of the nutrition and energy they consume to the next trophic level. The rest 90% energy is released into the ecosystem increasing its entropy, which has to be pumped out of the ecosystem to maintain internal order, or a condition of low entropy. To maintain order in any self-organizing dynamical system, like the Earth's ecosystem, energy must be expended to pump out disorder. Large-scale meat-eating generates a very large entropy overhead, and at the same time leaves the ecosystem with very little energy for pumping it out.

There is an important argument against meat-eating here, but this paragraph misses the point. The discussion of entropy is a red herring - the 90% of energy that isn't transfered directly up the ecological pyramid will find its way to microbes and the soil via decomposition. The paragraph implies that animals create some kind of entropy pollution, which is simply untrue. There is also a contradiction in the paragraph. First, it states that huge amounts of energy are released into ecosystems by animals, then it says that ecosystems are lacking in energy to deal with this.Rubisco 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right. This point could be much better explained. Those additional plants and animals created by the meat industry are in addition to what the equilibrium state of the ecosystem supports. It doesn't matter whether the entropy is released into the system by microbial decomposition or human consumption. The fact that this potential for additional entropy is created by the meat industry is the problem. In its natural state, the ecosystem will not add to itself a zillion cows, pigs, hens, etc on such an intensive scale. Also, there is no contradiction regarding entropy being released by animals, and ecosystems lacking energy to pump out the additional entropy. If there is any confusion, this could be stated in more layman-like terms, but in terms of thermodynamics this is a completely sound argument. Of course, total energy of the universe is constant, and the energy we're getting from the sun is also more or less constant, but the point here is available or useful energy vs. entropy. You can read Gibbs free energy and Entropy and life to get a start into this topic. Even forests store solar energy, and trees too decompose, releasing entropy. But in a dynamical system like the ecosystem, stability crucially depends upon the time scales. If you replace a process with a frequency of 100 years (gradual storage of energy followed by gradual decay) with one with a frequency of few months (produce crops, feed animals, eat animals), control theory suggests that the dynamical system could easiliy become unstable. That's what this whole argument is about, and I'll try to explain it better in the article. deeptrivia (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be most grateful if you could provide some references relating to this argument as it contradicts everything I know about thermodynamics. Thanks! Rubisco 18:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would be able help better if you could point out some contradictions. Some references related to the relation between entropy, ecosystem stability, economic activity, etc, are: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. deeptrivia (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! They'll make interesting reading.Rubisco 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Ok - this is clearer to me now. My background is in biochemical thermodynamics and it appears that what you're actually referring to is ecological entropy, which is different to the concept of entropy in formal thermodynamics. Ecological entropy is a measure of biodiversity - it's not really related to Gibbs Free Energy or any other thermodynamic measurments, although it does use some of the tools available in thermodynamics. Now that I'm clearer on the basis of the argument, I'm sure that between us we can rewrite this section. Rubisco 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics of eating vegetables

There isn't an article on Ethics of eating vegetables, since they are life forms just like animals. People who value life and eat vegetables are ignoring that plants have lives too and don't want to be eaten. Wouldn't it be nice to create a kind of tablet in labs that contain all the energy and necessary nutrients one needs? In the future, people can just eat tablets to sustain themselves.--141.213.198.142 03:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you go ahead and create that article? As long as you provide reliable sources, it should be fine... It would definitely be more useful than this kind of unhelpful comment. IronChris | (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the whole reason for fruit is so animals will eat them and scatter the seeds. So some plants actually DO want to be eaten. --Calibas 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Plants do NOT want to be eaten, just the fruits of some plants. Eating meat is like eating vegetables.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
How do you know what a plant wants? As far as we know plants want to be eaten. With animals on the other hand, it's pretty obvious that they'd rather not be killed. Are you trying to make a valid arguement here or are you just calling vegetarians hypocrites? --Calibas 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It's foolish if you believe any organism wants to be eaten. What's the point of living in that? Plants do not want to be killed just like their animal counterparts. The two are more alike than different. Saying eating meat is like eating vegetables is both a valid statement, and a rebuff towards those who believe one should not kill for their food. Plants are as much alive as anything else.--141.213.198.142 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Tapeworms would love for you to eat them. But seriously, desire (want) is a product of being conscious. Do you believe plants are conscious? There's evidence that animals are conscious but I've never heard anything about plants being conscious. Hence, plants have no wants, I was being facetious when I suggested they want to be eaten. If you want more ammo for your arguement, there's people called fruitarians that believe plants have rights. --Calibas 01:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware there was a significant movement questioning the ethics of eating vegetables that an article could be based off of. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we have an article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster; I would not be surprised if we had one on the ethics of eating vegetables. The Jade Knight 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I immediately thought of Jainism, looked around, and saw that we do have a related article at Santhara. Dekimasuよ! 09:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statements

If no one objects, I'm going to come through in a while and delete all of the rebuttals that lack citations, or a "see [x]". The Jade Knight 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine by me. The way I see it, we are all part of the food chain, just on different levels of it. Do you think a lion or a shark would think twice about eating a human, in case it hurt our feelings? No, of course it wouldn't, we are just lunch, the same as a tasty bit of dead pig.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.15.9.155 (talk • contribs).

"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." I didn't know if I would be justified in removing your comment despite its irrelevance to this section, but, at the very least, it couldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged.Kyle Key 23:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B12

"According to the US National Institutes of Health, refraining from eating meat leads to increased risk of developing Vitamin B-12 deficiencies." Can someone provide a reference for this statement? Everywhere I look on the NIH website says you're only at risk if you dont eat meat, dairy or eggs. [11][12][13] Here's an article on an NIH site claiming you can get B12 from fermented soy. [14] --Calibas 00:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference is actually the next cited reference (24). The Jade Knight 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the text in particular: "Strict vegetarians and vegans are at greater risk of developing vitamin B12 deficiency than lacto-ovo vegetarians and nonvegetarians because natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals [7]." The Jade Knight 11:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't say "refraining from eating meat leads to increased risk of developing Vitamin B-12 deficiencies" that says you're only at risk if you dont eat meat, dairy or eggs. According to everything I can find on the NIH website, abstaining from meat doesn't lead to B12 deficiency. This article is about the ethics of eating meat. I can understand the arguement that it's ethical to eat meat because abstaining leads to vitamin deficiency, but, according to the NIH, this isn't the case with B12. I'm going to delete most of the section about B12 unless someone can provide a reference that you need to eat meat to have healthy levels of B12. The part about pregnant woman will be left in, but I think we should include the full results of that study: "In newborns and infants born to mothers with an adequate nutrition, there are consistent observations of low cobalamin, elevated tHcy and methylmalonic acid, and reduction of both metabolites by cobalamin supplementation. These data have raised the question whether cobalamin deficiency may be widespread and undetected in babies born to non-vegetarian women on a Westernized diet." --Calibas 21:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

One problem with this article is that the very discussions presented have been based on a vague and arbitrary set of terms. For instance, it is all very well to base arguments on sentience and on the definition of sentience as per a single book, but that undermines the scope of the article from the start. There are no reasons cited as to why this would be a valid starting point, or why one should exclude arguements based on anything else. Also terms such as pleasure and pain are inherently vague and open to interpretation. When an arguement is made based on the ability of a being to experience either, it is vital that a clear definition of pleasure or pain be adopted. consider my addition of the reference to JC Bose; he interpretted the violent electrochemical changes in plant physiology caused by physical mutilation as an experience of pain. There can be no 'proof' or 'disproof' of this experience, as it is entirely a matter of definition. we must be careful tat ethical arguements donot become arguements of definition. People should not use this article as a place to haggle over words. So when making an arguement state clearly the definitions that go with a particular belief, and for god's sake don't generalize those definitions as being supreme or the Chosen One or anything like that.Leopart 10:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this page exist?

Um... Why does this page exist? This page is patently not about "the ethics of eating meat", but is rather a page dedicated to giving adamant vegetarians and omnivores a place to square off. Is the debate between vegetarians and others so heated that eating meat must now be justified? Likewise, considering that humans have been eating meat throughout our existence and only in the past 6000 years developed an agricultural diet, shouldn't the title of the article be focused on the ethics or reasons why individuals engage in a vegetarian diet? This entire topic seems absolutely ridiculous. 164.67.226.47 12:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, this isn't an encyclopedia article - it reads like the transcript from a debate.Rubisco 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think very few of the editors even both to read the talk page, why bother when all the arguing is done on the main page? 2/3rds of the article is original research and though ethics is a branch of philosophy, I can only find one philosopher mentioned in the article, Peter Singer. I think we should delete about 80% of the article and get rid of the whole point/counterpoint formatt. --Calibas 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I think the format has to be changed, but I don't quite agree with your suggestion, 164.67.226.47 - the topic should remain two-sided; we are not absolutely certain about our history, and for some the eating of meat is questionable; for others vegetarianism - it's a controversial topic. I wonder how best to change the format/make it more concise without making the article one-sided?

--Greenwoodtree 00:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested this before but haven't bothered to take the time to put it all together. Just make it like most other wikipedia articles, have a section on health, religious views, etc. and combine everything together. There's not very much information here that isn't either original research or editor's opinions so most of it can be deleted. One of the big problems is making this page "balanced" as there's not much about the ethics of eating meat other than the writings of people like Peter Singer. Feel free to take an axe to the page, I don't think there's an editor here that likes the page the way it is. --Calibas 23:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a "consider for deletion" template so everyone can consider. Is this OK? --Greenwoodtree 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Though the page is in rough shape we shouldn't delete the whole thing, just most of it. --Calibas 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal for Animal Pain

I removed the first rebuttal because it made unfounded claims that were not reflected in the websites sited. It claimed that conclusive proof has been found that animals do feel pain. The articles sited explicitly stated that animal can experience nocioception but human pain also involved an emotional element which may or may not exist in animals. Rafiqr 03:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major deletions

The largest problem with this article is the format. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a high school debate. We could combine it all together into a regular article but I doubt anybody wants to do all that work. Luckily, most of the page violates one of Wikipedia's basic policies, Wikipedia:No original research. Specifically, the part about no original analysis or synthesis of established facts. I'll go through every section and explain the problems.

  • Scope It's well referenced except for the main point of the section which is: "While some see no problems with this level of production and consumption of animals for food, others view it as one of the most pressing ethical issues facing humanity." Who is saying this? Without references we're gonna have to assume that this is the conclusion of the editor.
  • Eating meat is like eating vegetables Same as above, states one widely accepted fact then proceeds to draw conclusions based on that.
  • Eating meat is a natural behaviour "Some argue that because meat eating is a natural or traditional behaviour, in some cases necessary for survival, it is excluded from ethical consideration" Who argues this? Yes, the rest of the section is well referenced but has nothing to do with ethics without this main point.
  • Animals feel no pain This has a lot to do with the argument if animals are conscious or not. This is the strongest ethical argument for eating meat, which happens to be what this article is about, yet it's also one of the shortest. Doesn't exactly explain why it's ethical to kill something because it doesn't feel pain or isn't conscious but I'm willing to let that slide.
  • Saying sorry to animals justifies killing them The basic premise is also the title of this section. Who is arguing this point?
  • Overpopulation No ethical argument at all here.
  • Animals have no morals This connects to the argument about whether animals are conscious or not. No references, gonna have to assume it's orginal research.
  • Health Who's arguing that it's ethical to eat animals because these studies show it's healthier? It's implied but not expilictly stated, as an encyclodic article should be.
  • Necessity Who's arguing that necessity makes something ethical?
  • Farming plants harms animals This is basically a rebuttal to the least harm principle of Peter Singer and should be combined with that.
  • Farming animals keeps them alive References and it has to do with ethics, a rare thing in this article.
  • As humans, we should protect only human interests No references, gonna have to assume it's original research.

I'm out of time but I'll be back to take an axe to the rest of the article. I'll add [citation needed] tags to the things I mentioned here and post the problems with the rest of the artictle. I'll wait about a week for discussion before I start deleting and shortly after that I'll get rid of the argument/rebuttal format. --Calibas 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    • That's great Calibas, well done. I agree with all your proposed changes. Hopefully other people will too :) --Greenwoodtree 05:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/t/h/Talk%7EEthics_of_eating_meat_9861.html"