On a related note, it’s worth mentioning that factory farming is the vast majority of global meat, dairy, egg, etc, production
We estimate that over 90% of farmed animals globally are living in factory farms at present. This includes an estimated 74% of farmed land animals (vertebrates only) and virtually all farmed fish.[1]
We estimate that 99% of US farmed animals are living in factory farms at present. By species, we estimate that 70.4% of cows, 98.3% of pigs, 99.8% of turkeys, 98.2% of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9% of chickens raised for meat are living in factory farms. Based on the confinement and living conditions of farmed fish, we estimate that virtually all US fish farms are suitably described as factory farms, though there is limited data on fish farm conditions and no standardized definition.[1] Land animal figures use data from the USDA Census of Agriculture[2] and EPA definitions of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.[3]
New Zealand’s pasture based systems aren’t exactly the idealistic visions people have of them. Even just environmentally, their attempts to scale them up have required huge amounts of fertilizer and lead to huge amounts of pollution. For instance for their dairy production:
The large footprint for milk in Canterbury indicates just how far the capacity of the environment has been overshot. To maintain that level of production and have healthy water would require either 12 times more rainfall in the region or a 12-fold reduction in cows.
[…]
The “grass-fed” marketing line overlooks the huge amounts of fossil-fuel-derived fertiliser used to make the extra grass that supports New Zealand’s very high animal stock rates.
I mean, there’s no rule that says that one must consider nature, as a whole, to be ethical. It’s perfectly possible to believe that nature itself is “messed up” in a moral sense and merely outside the capacity of humans to change for the foreseeable future. One’s own behavior is much easier to impact by contract.
I would even argue, that nature as a whole, cannot be ethical, since the ecosystem is essentially build on organisms eating each other. And nothing outside human experience can, really, if we get to technical nitpicking. Ethics are things created out of human mind, they do not exist outside us… Anyway, that does not mean you cannot aim for being as ethical as possible. Since ethics are real to us, if we want to be Good, we should all strive towards that.
Extending human ethics toward non-humans is a questionable endeavor at best. That being said, I personally don’t like extra unnecessary suffering, which is why I prefer eating humanely raised and killed animals.
Taking the minimization of suffering to its logical conclusion, however, animals suffer in the wild without human intervention, so the most humane thing to do would be to exterminate them all. This would prevent any future suffering entirely.
Surely you see a problem with such a utilitarian approach?
The thing is, minimization of suffering is not the only thing to consider in ethics, it is a very complicated matter. For example freedom, the individual’s right to decide themselves, is often considered at least on par with it; deciding to kill something, because you think it is best for them, is not often seen as very ethical.
Personally I think there just is no single solid ethical Truth, that decides what the Good is (since ethics are human things, and humans are far from infallible or all-knowing), it is more of an ongoing discussion, about what that means. But we should still strive towards that Good, even if we are not quite sure what it is, or change our minds about what it is. In fact, a person thinking they are absolutely sure something is Right, is a sign, that they should not slam that door shut. Only a sith deals in absolutes, essentially lmao.
deciding to kill something, because you think it is best for them
My argument is that from a utilitarian viewpoint it’s not just best for them, but it prevents future suffering for all their offspring. Not just the suffering of one, but of untold millions.
Obviously I don’t think a utilitarian approach like this is the right way to proceed.
And my point is just, that valuing that utilitarian viewpoint over other things, is not a stance a lot of people consider ethical. It is a choice, to end up with that being the “end result” of ethical thinking - there is no single right answer. Someone might think that the suffering caused to an individual, by them being killed without consent, weights more than potential suffering that might happen in the future. Then we get to how we define suffering. And then… ethics are always a mess, with only increasing amount of difficult questions, and no “absolutely correct” answers to any of them.
How’s that messed up? This is literally how the natural world works. Predators eat prey. We are the apex predator species.
Natural does not mean we should do something? Cannibalism is also natural, but we rightly find that horrible
Brushing aside moral considerations, cannibalism leads to things like kuru, so that’s a no go either way.
I have no qualms eating animals, provided they weren’t factory farmed.
On a related note, it’s worth mentioning that factory farming is the vast majority of global meat, dairy, egg, etc, production
https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/global-animal-farming-estimates
https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates
That’s why I prefer New Zealand or Australian lamb. Just lamb living their best lamb lives out on pastures.
Can’t wait for deer season this year so I can restock on venison.
New Zealand’s pasture based systems aren’t exactly the idealistic visions people have of them. Even just environmentally, their attempts to scale them up have required huge amounts of fertilizer and lead to huge amounts of pollution. For instance for their dairy production:
https://theconversation.com/11-000-litres-of-water-to-make-one-litre-of-milk-new-questions-about-the-freshwater-impact-of-nz-dairy-farming-183806
Damn, guess I’ll just keep eating 100% factory farmed then.
You can always stop eating meat
That is the next stage of the purity test, yes, but I have a sneaking suspicion that OP wouldn’t be satisfied with that either.
Who doesn’t love dying during childhood?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
I mean, there’s no rule that says that one must consider nature, as a whole, to be ethical. It’s perfectly possible to believe that nature itself is “messed up” in a moral sense and merely outside the capacity of humans to change for the foreseeable future. One’s own behavior is much easier to impact by contract.
I would even argue, that nature as a whole, cannot be ethical, since the ecosystem is essentially build on organisms eating each other. And nothing outside human experience can, really, if we get to technical nitpicking. Ethics are things created out of human mind, they do not exist outside us… Anyway, that does not mean you cannot aim for being as ethical as possible. Since ethics are real to us, if we want to be Good, we should all strive towards that.
Extending human ethics toward non-humans is a questionable endeavor at best. That being said, I personally don’t like extra unnecessary suffering, which is why I prefer eating humanely raised and killed animals.
Taking the minimization of suffering to its logical conclusion, however, animals suffer in the wild without human intervention, so the most humane thing to do would be to exterminate them all. This would prevent any future suffering entirely.
Surely you see a problem with such a utilitarian approach?
The thing is, minimization of suffering is not the only thing to consider in ethics, it is a very complicated matter. For example freedom, the individual’s right to decide themselves, is often considered at least on par with it; deciding to kill something, because you think it is best for them, is not often seen as very ethical.
Personally I think there just is no single solid ethical Truth, that decides what the Good is (since ethics are human things, and humans are far from infallible or all-knowing), it is more of an ongoing discussion, about what that means. But we should still strive towards that Good, even if we are not quite sure what it is, or change our minds about what it is. In fact, a person thinking they are absolutely sure something is Right, is a sign, that they should not slam that door shut. Only a sith deals in absolutes, essentially lmao.
My argument is that from a utilitarian viewpoint it’s not just best for them, but it prevents future suffering for all their offspring. Not just the suffering of one, but of untold millions.
Obviously I don’t think a utilitarian approach like this is the right way to proceed.
And my point is just, that valuing that utilitarian viewpoint over other things, is not a stance a lot of people consider ethical. It is a choice, to end up with that being the “end result” of ethical thinking - there is no single right answer. Someone might think that the suffering caused to an individual, by them being killed without consent, weights more than potential suffering that might happen in the future. Then we get to how we define suffering. And then… ethics are always a mess, with only increasing amount of difficult questions, and no “absolutely correct” answers to any of them.
WILL happen in the future. Is guaranteed to happen in the future.
Not even sun rising tomorrow is guaranteed, in philosophy.
Hoards ravaging neighboring communities and killing everyone up to the children is perfectly natural for humans but you don’t have to do it.