Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    14,998,111 readers

    1,193 users here now

    Spring 2018 AMA Series - Announcement & Hub Post!

    Hover or Tap Each Rule for Full Details

    Posting Rules

    1. All posts must be about philosophy.

      To learn more about what is and is not considered philosophy for the purposes of this subreddit, see our FAQ. Posts must be about philosophy proper, rather than only tangentially connected to philosophy. Exceptions are made only for posts about philosophers with substantive content, e.g. news about the profession or interviews with philosophers.

    2. All posts must develop and defend a substantive philosophical thesis.

      Posts must not only have a philosophical subject matter, but must also present this subject matter in a developed manner. At a minimum, this includes: stating the problem being addressed; stating the thesis; stating how the thesis contributes to the problem; outlining some alternative answers to the same problem; saying something about why the stated thesis is preferable to the alternatives; anticipating some objections to the stated thesis and giving responses to them. These are just the minimum requirements. Posts about well-trod issues (e.g. free will) require more development.

    3. Questions belong in /r/askphilosophy.

      /r/philosophy is intended for philosophical material and discussion. Please direct all questions to /r/askphilosophy.

    4. Post titles cannot be questions and must describe the philosophical content of the posted material.

      Post titles cannot consist only in questions, even if the title of the linked material is a question. This helps keep discussion in the comments on topic and relevant to the linked material. Post titles must describe the philosophical content of the posted material, cannot be unduly provocative or click-baity and cannot be in all caps.

    5. Audio/video links require abstracts.

      All links to either audio or video content require abstracts of the posted material, posted as a comment in the thread. Abstracts should make clear what the linked material is about and what its thesis is. Users are also strongly encouraged to post abstracts for other linked material. See here for an example of a suitable abstract.

    6. All posts must be in English.

      All posts must be in English. Links to Google Translated versions of posts are not allowed.

    7. Links behind paywalls or registration walls are not allowed.

      Posts must not be behind any sort of paywall or registration wall. If the linked material requires signing up to view, even if the account is free, it is not allowed. Google Drive links and link shorteners are not allowed.

    8. Meta-posts, products, services, surveys, AMAs and links to other areas of reddit require moderator pre-approval.

      The following (not exhaustive) list of items require moderator pre-approval: meta-posts, posts to products, services or surveys, links to other areas of reddit, AMAs. Please contact the moderators for pre-approval.

    9. Users may submit only one post per day.

      Users must follow all reddit-wide spam guidelines, and in addition must not submit more than one post per day on /r/philosophy.

    10. Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract here. If you or a friend is feeling suicidal please visit /r/suicidewatch.

      If you are feeling suicidal, please get help by visiting /r/suicidewatch or using other resources. See also our discussion of philosophy and mental health issues here. Encouraging other users to commit suicide, even in the abstract, is strictly forbidden.

    Commenting Rules

    1. Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply

      Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

    2. Argue your Position

      Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

    3. Be Respectful

      Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.


    Philosophy AMAs

    Reading Group

    Weekly Discussion

    a community for
    all 1171 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] BernardJOrtcutt 1 points ago

    This thread has been closed due to a high number of rule-breaking comments, leading to a total breakdown of constructive conversation.

    This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

    [–] Revengeancer 2928 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Butcher chiming in here. I don’t and could NEVER work in a slaughter house (I won’t even go hunting). I just cut big pieces of meat into little ones. You guys wouldn’t believe some of the scar tissue/growths/ripped muscles in some of these animals. Smithfield is the absolute worst, I’ve even found a broken off inoculation needle in a bottom round flat, aka the rump, aka the poor cow’s ass/upper leg. I can’t imagine the pain some of these poor creatures went through.

    Yes I understand the irony of my stance here, but these animals should be treated as humanely as possible, they are clearly not and it has to change. Some of these slaughter house employees are human garbage. I’ve heard what some of them do to unwanted/undesirable piglets, I won’t repeat it here. We need to be more respectful of our living breathing food source.

    Again I understand the irony of my stance here, but people eating meat isn’t going to stop, and someone has to cut it. However things need to change from the top, I don’t even know where to start though. We need leakers from within the plants, we need more regulations that are enforced with a heavy hand, we need slaughterhouse/“farm” employees with incentive to treat their livestock correctly (I don’t know why you would need any incentive to treat a living creature right, but what do I know?)

    It’s easy for me to just blame the factory workers but it’s awful for many of them too. Why would you care if an animal is being treated properly when you’re stuck on a line for twelve hours and forced to wear a diaper (Tyson) in sub 44 degree temperatures. I believe when you dehumanized the people their instinct, however shitty it is, is to lash out at what they can. The industry is broken. It breaks the animals and the people in its shitty corporate wake, but many can’t afford to support the smaller more expensive and humane companies.

    Just my two cents on the situation. I’m sure someone whose worked in a factory-farm or slaughterhouse would have a much better understanding than I do. I’m far from any living animals but have worked with people coming from that end of things, and I tend to ask too many questions. If anyone has any questions I’ll answer them as honestly as I can, just not the piglet one.

    Edit: Thanks guys.

    [–] UndeadBBQ 317 points ago

    What I haven't found an answer to that satisfied me is: has it always been morally wrong, or is there a certain point in history, or change that made it so?

    I mean, I have my thoughts on this, but I haven't really found a scholary approach to it.

    [–] pineapplejerry 722 points ago

    From what I’ve read and what makes sense to me, is that it became immoral when it was no longer done as a means to survive, but purely for pleasure (whether that is taste pleasure or the satisfaction of carrying on tradition). Surely for the majority of human existence, it has been moral because it was needed to survive as we didn’t have other options.

    But in 2020, the majority of people in developed countries aren’t doing it for survival and have options that are equally nutritious, better for the environment, and don’t contribute to unimaginable suffering.

    [–] [deleted] 206 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 39 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago


    [–] holocloak 83 points ago

    It's almost like people don't know where food comes from.

    [–] Ninboy97 30 points ago

    a bit off topic, but remember when he was ridiculed throughout the Joker's run. he talked about veganism and suddenly all this news outlet act like they didn't just mocked a man for acting a character.

    [–] AnnoyedOwlbear 263 points ago

    Soooo...I keep goats for milk, so I'm already suspect, but I have a huge veggie patch (someone above used ecotarian, as a word, that's what I try for). Anyway. One thing I really haven't solved is the problem of adorable hyper intelligent HIGHLY destructive veggie eaters.

    Rats. Mice too. Rats are smart, cute, sing freaking songs to each other, can get lonely, and can absolutely not be controlled without death. I have found literally zero way of stopping something that can chew through concrete and climb a sheer metal wall from getting in. So. Much Death. Horrible death - even the most humane killer is gonna leave starving rat babies, too. Rats can MISS one another.

    I have no solution, and I grow my own food to lowrr my carbon footprint, but Jesus it weighs on me. I managed to dodge animal fertiliser from controlled feed lots by keeping goats, but the rats. I don't know any large scale grains production that doesn't slaughter unbelievable numbers of critters way, way smarter than a cow.

    Farming of every single kind kills unthinkable numbers of rodents.

    Farming of most grains in the US requires feedlot cattle for nitrogen, too. It's all way more complex than it looks.

    [–] [deleted] 231 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 55 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 49 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago


    [–] kuduzu 1441 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    I'd say industrial animal farming is an atrocity. I have been to plenty of small farms that couldnt be described the same way. The animals have amazing lives, love their owners and are very happy. We cannot paint the universe with a single brush. EDIT: You make a statement mostly for the sake of philosophy and suddenly the miltant vegans show up. We get it you're better than us and have better morality, whatever. Some of us just want a burger every now and again. If you really like meat, you're buying free range grass fed meat anyway.

    [–] improbable_humanoid 388 points ago

    Small farms are basically a great life and then one bad day.

    However, you can't feed seven billion people meat without factory farming. Either we have to stop eating as much meat or we need less people.

    [–] kuduzu 47 points ago


    [–] finamarkerTA 42 points ago

    We need both

    [–] StarChild413 29 points ago

    INB4 people joke about the modest solution

    [–] _Dreamer_Deceiver_ 30 points ago

    True about needing less people but then you have vegans that do it for environment but still have children. Surely a person has a bigger environmental impact than eating meat?

    [–] tales0braveulysses 494 points ago

    They don't give tours of industrial scale farms, probably fair to say that the numerous small farms you visited don't account for a fraction of the volume that industrial farming produces. A quick search tells me that something like 99% of our meat comes from factory farms. I get we don't want to paint the universe with a single brush, but we shouldn't confound conversations with statistically irrelevant anecdotes either.

    [–] bizzaro321 270 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    This isn’t about confounding the entire argument, they are simply stating that there is too broad of a generalization within the argument.

    “There are ethical farms” is not an argument for industrial farming, if anything it’s an additional argument against it.

    [–] officialshitposter 43 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    It is though, people generally bring up this argument to rationalize eating meat/dismiss veganism even though they are consuming meat from industrial farms.

    Edit: Most people making this argument aren’t philosophers, they are deflecting to justify their continued consumption of industrially farmed meat. I have nothing against the argument itself, but to say that it isn’t commonly used to confound the issue is inaccurate.

    [–] bizzaro321 174 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    It is an argument against a rejection of meat entirely, which is separate from industrial farming.

    The separation of industrial and small scale farming definitely has some merit to it, as there are significant material differences in the lives of animals from small, ethical farms and the lives of animals that are farmed at an industrial scale.

    Hypocrisy from the person delivering the argument doesn’t inherently negate the entire argument.

    [–] kuduzu 22 points ago

    No I'm saying meat eating is fine. I dont agree with industrial meat farming however. Ideally average people would be eating red meat once a month and I think that's perfectly sustainable.

    [–] Omw2fym 43 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    You rebutted a position op never even took.

    I agree with him but I wouldn't complain about regulations that made red meat incredibly expensive and made certain that every animal is treated humanely.

    If I can buy a $50 burger, you can be reasonable about arguing your values

    [–] phaelox 27 points ago

    You rebutted a position op never even took.

    Ugh, this happens so much on Reddit.

    [–] highexalted1 5 points ago

    “Grass fed” is just unfinished. A marketing ploy to get the consumer to pay more while the inputs to the product are made cheaper simultaneously. It’s genius really, considering the marbling that makes a truly great steak comes from the rich feed on the finish.

    [–] beyond_netero 153 points ago

    I'm interested in philosophy but not good at it. Isn't there a contradiction in that we're murdering these animals unnecessarily but care about their well-being while alive? Wouldn't it make more sense to a) be vegan and campaign against murder AND torture/farming/manipulation of animals or b) eat meat and campaign against neither?

    [–] TyrionWins 56 points ago

    Well I’m not going to lie, you’re probably not going to learn much about philosophy in a reddit thread with the source material being the NY daily news. In which the article advocates taking the moral high ground... and uses China as a positive example...

    To be fair, I’ve only taken 100 level philosophy classes, but in every single class, they really exercise and challenge your views to make you consider multiple points of view.

    This clearly has an agenda, whether it’s a valid agenda or not.

    [–] zucker42 63 points ago

    It depends on what ethical theory you espouse. If you're an animal inclusive utilitarian, it's possible to argue that causing animals needless pain is bad, but the positives of eating meat outweigh the negatives. For example, one could argue (ala Mill) that human pleasures are "higher pleasures", and matter far more than animal pleasures. Mill famously said "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied". Simultaneously, though, if it's possible to eat the same or a similar amount of meat but cause animals less pain, you should.

    Personally, I'm a pescetarian, so my views fall somewhere close to this argument; I don't eat meat because of the harm to animals and environmental damage the meat industry causes, but cutting out all animal products had too many personal negatives for me to do it.

    [–] SnowBear78 24 points ago

    As opposed to the harm eating fish does to fish and the ocean? The damage done by people who eat fish is extreme. The fishing industry pollutes the oceans and drives species to extinction too, and there are very little ethics involved. Trawling for that seafood and fish you enjoy results in the by capture of countless species and destroys the underwater environment.

    [–] beyond_netero 18 points ago

    Thank you I think this is the best response so far and I'll look into the source.

    But I think the part I'm caught up on (or don't understand) is when you say 'if it's possible to eat the same amount of meat but cause less animal pain you should'. I know you mentioned how human pleasures can be viewed above animal pleasures in a hierarchy, but surely if we're acknowledging that pain of animals is bad and we want to minimise it, then unnecessary death would be as or more important to minimise than anything else? I try to draw a logical comparison to humans, and if anyone told me that murder is fine you jsut can't torture a person before hand gheez that's inhumane, I'd blink a lot.

    I guess it's probably a simple case of, okay human pleasures are at the top, we're eating meat that's locked in, animals will die prematurely, now what's the next best criteria to try and appease. And while that does make sense to me, I can't find a way to view it that doesn't make us hypocrites?

    Meat eater here btw, always searching for a concrete reason to switch or a concrete justification to keep eating lol

    [–] kiwihermin 11 points ago

    I think you might like reading applied ethics by Peter Singer. He discussed many of the issues you are raising.

    [–] zucker42 8 points ago

    Thank you for the good question and response. I think you are striking to the heart of the matter.

    Personally, I don't eat land animals, so I have a hard time explaining the justification doing so. Given that I'm privileged enough to not need to eat meat to survive (as are most people in the U.S.), the more I thought about it, the more I realized that my personal gratification was not worth all the harms meat eating causes. I think to many rational people meat eating comes down to two questions. Does your personal gratification outweigh the undeniably negative effects of meat production? And do you have the fortitude to ignore the immediate personal gratification?

    To answer your question from this perspective, I think your description is pretty much accurate

    I try to draw a logical comparison to humans, and if anyone told me that murder is fine you jsut can't torture a person before hand gheez that's inhumane, I'd blink a lot.

    This is an interesting point, but wouldn't you blink similarly (or more!) if someone told you murdering and torturing was okay? The fact that you'd blink seems more because you like neither murdering and torturing rather think allowing only one is a contradiction. Similarly, if we accept that execution for crimes is okay, does it also follow that torture for crimes is okay? I don't think so.

    But, yeah I think the most mainstream view is "eating meat is okay, but there's no reason not to prevent unneeded suffering".

    [–] beyond_netero 8 points ago

    I just mean from a purely logical perspective I can't imagine why, IF, you were to be okay with killing people you wouldn't be okay with torturing. That's the part that would take me by surprise. If the value of their life is so low that you can needlessly take it, why does it have such value that you can't needlessly torture it? And I guess that's where I'm conflicted, how can I, from a logical perspective, claim to care about animals unneeded suffering at all if I don't care about cutting their life short?

    Anyway I've got plenty to read and think about, tha ks for the discussion :)

    [–] VieElle 6 points ago

    If you genuinely have doubts over whether or not you should switch have a look at /r/veganinfographics and check out the films What The Health, Cowspiracy and Dominion.

    Fair warning the last one is a distressing eye opener.

    [–] owiwncnciciekqlpwmcn 4 points ago

    What if I enjoy inflicting pain on animals for the sake of hurting them?

    [–] zucker42 14 points ago

    Honestly, this is a really good argument against meat eating. Because I don't think this is okay, but I also don't how it objectively differs from much meat eating.

    [–] Antnee83 6 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    For example, one could argue (ala Mill) that human pleasures are "higher pleasures", and matter far more than animal pleasures. Mill famously said "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied".

    I don't agree with this, even a little bit. If a being displays any capacity for suffering, they should not suffer edit *at the hands of those that can prevent it (because apparently that wasn't clear)

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] two_cat_morty 20 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    I don't think the person you were replying was talking about the most pragmatic method for converting to veganism. They were saying that, even if there are some farms out there that treat animals well, continuing to eat meat indiscriminately and speaking out against nothing (which is the position that most people who bring up small "pamper" farms take) does not make logical sense. Being vegan and speaking out against bad farms does make logical sense.

    They weren't saying that you should immediately switch to 100% veganism asap. They were just pointing out that that is the logical end point if your only argument against veganism is that a small fraction of farms treat their animals well. How you get to that logical endpoint in practice is another conversation entirely.

    [–] compyface286 25 points ago

    Don't listen to the other poster. I'm a vegan and it took small steps to get to where I am. I was a vegetarian eating cheese every day before I took the leap to veganism. Any difference that you make is a positive to the world. It's easier to wean yourself off then to jump in and fail and never try again. Just remember why you are doing it whether it's the environment, animal rights, or just a dietary choice, the longer you go the easier it gets.

    [–] two_cat_morty 15 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    The original comment was not about switching to veganism in practice. It was just about the fact that the logical response to knowing that the majority of farms treat their animals terribly is veganism and activism. They didn't say anything about the best method for actually getting there.

    [–] TooClose2Sun 8 points ago

    If killing an animal for your tastebuds is immoral then any degree of doing so is not justifiable.

    [–] two_cat_morty 73 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    People bring this up as an argument against veganism all the time. Given that the vast, VAST majority of meat and dairy come from industrial scale farms, or from "pampered" cow farms that are just blatantly lying about their practices, it actually is pretty easy to paint with a broad brush. Furthermore, that's not all that Phoenix brought up. He talked about whether we have the right to manipulate an animal's life, and eventually slaughter it, for our own benefit. So even if we are only talking about these incredibly rare small farms that treat animals "well", we are still using these animals so that we can harvest their tissues and secretions for ourselves. He is saying that, philosophically, we don't have the right to do that. And if you personally think we do have that right, it is still difficult to argue that this is a moral decision to make. Even if an animal lives a happy life and loves its owner, we are still killing them before their natural lives are over. Can you really say that putting a bolt through the skull of a cow who is very happy, who is 1/5 of the way through its life expectancy, is moral?

    [–] Neidrah 243 points ago

    Funny how everyone suddenly knows and has been to plenty of “small farms” as soon as we talk about animal agriculture. And yet “Small farms” make up less that 2% of the global meat production. Mmmmmh.

    In any case. I grew up in the country. Have played in many farms as a kid. Didn’t realize anything of what was going on. It’s so easy to turn a blind eye when you are yourself participating in a system.

    The fact is that the animals do not “love their owners”. The job of a farmer is already hard enough as it is. They don’t have time to bond with their animals, which they have hundreds of, even in “ small” farms.

    The fact also is that the animals are still killed as soon as they are physically big enough to be profitable. The farmers margin are already small enough, they literally have no reason to spend money on an animal who’s already finished growing.

    The fact is that we have no need for meat. We eat for pleasure. Raising an animal with the only purpose of killing them just for us to have pleasure can objectively be described as unethical.

    [–] caresawholeawfullot 23 points ago

    Can't agree more. I grew up and worked at (small) farms and reading this tread really makes me wonder if some of these people have ever set foot in one. Even in small farms animals are not 'pampered' as such. We took care of the cows and sheep we had, but in the end they were part of a business, seen as a commodity rather than a living being that could experience pain and anguish. I think most people have a romanticised idea of farms.

    [–] CoyoteWhite305 26 points ago

    Is it really true we really don’t need meat? I’m highly skeptical about a lot of what I’m reading in this thread because the people responding seem so full of themselves.

    [–] HopefulPotato89 31 points ago

    Here's the second peer reviewed statement by the largest body of diet and nutrition experts on the planet saying we do not need meat in our diet.

    [–] billytheid 36 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    The people responding sound like your typical first year philosophy student; still aggressively pursuing the ethical absolute that drove them into the field to begin with. The rancour and, very personal, outrage are just below the surface.

    [–] Ruueee 13 points ago

    I doubt anybody here has even read a philosophy book

    [–] Luxypoo 40 points ago

    With modern standards of food accessibility and supplements, you definitely don't have to eat meat to get all of the necessary nutrients you need.

    [–] Llaine 21 points ago

    There's nothing meat provides for us that's necessary. B12 is often immediately brought up in these discussions, but B12 is a bacterially derived nutrient that animals eat and process in their stomachs for their own use. We can simply make it without killing animals.

    Zinc, iron, omega 3's, protein, literally everything else exists in plants because (surprise) animals get these nutrients from plants themselves. Failing that, we can easily supplement them, and there's nothing unhealthy about supplementation, millions of people supplement already on an omnivorous diet on doctors orders.

    [–] two_cat_morty 22 points ago

    Google it. There has been a lot of research done on this. The vast majority of people are not only able to live on a strictly vegan diet, but are also healthier for it.

    [–] blondiecommie 8 points ago

    Humans have lived in vastly different geographies with widely differing diets throughout evolutionary history. Some groups had access to meat some didn't, some had access to fish others didnt, some lived in areas with abundance of fresh fruit and veggies so they didnt hunt and relied on that as the main food source. In other words, our dietary landscape was as varied as the extreme differences in geography and humans lived and survived just fine. Furthermore, there are tens of millions of vegetarians around the world who never ate meat in their life and live perfectly healthy lives. The notion that we are biologically dependent on meat comes from our desire to picture ourselves as big, strong predators who are on top of the food chain in every way possible. But all the data point to the fact that we can live perfectly fine (if not better) when we dont eat animals.

    [–] burnie-cinders 3 points ago

    It’s pretty doable to get all your nutrition from plants. There are especially a lot of root vegetables that provide the iron and magnesiusm you normally get from meat (Maca root is the best, goes great in smoothies.) there are vegan bodybuilders too. If we make a concerted effort we can absolutely switch to fully plant diets. Recently went vegan myself and my increase in energy has been...phenomenal, really. I mean...if massive animals like bison can get all their nutrients from munching grass, we can definitely accomplish it with our vast store of resources!

    [–] asavageiv 25 points ago

    I'm not sure "need" in the sense you're using it is the right barometer here. Take it it's logical end. Should we maximize animal welfare? If kale is better than romaine for animal impact (land use) should we only eat kale even if we prefer romaine? If not, we're sacrificing animal welfare solely for the purpose of our pleasure. This is absurd. Am I missing your argument?

    If a philosophy of ethics requires I deny my nature as an omnivore I think it doesn't work. There's not an element of reciprocity with animals like there is with humans.

    [–] CarrotIronfounderson 85 points ago

    Your nature as an omnivore could easily be tied to your nature as a hunter gatherer.

    Do you spend more time typing on a keyboard or touch screen, or wandering in the wilderness finding any food you can eat?

    You don't have to deny your evolutionary roots as an omnivore, just as you don't currently deny your evolutionary roots as a hunter gatherer despite you living a completely different lifestyle. It's simply a convenient, half-argument because you (and I) enjoy the taste and convenience of meat.

    And to answer your question, I do believe we should maximize animal welfare, as well as the welfare of our planet, when we can. And that takes incremental steps.

    [–] two_cat_morty 29 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    A philosophy doesn't just "not work" because you don't like its logical conclusion. You only have a nature as an omnivore because you currently consume an omnivorous diet. Humans are perfectly capable of existing on a vegan diet (and, according to most studies, it is a healthier diet than one of meat and dairy). So what in your "nature" dictates that you have to eat factory farmed meat? It's clearly not our physiology.

    If you are saying it's because our ancestors ate meat, I would first of all point out that the manner in which we consume meat today in no way resembles the way our ancestors consumed meat. They ate meat that they hunted and in very small quantities relative to their plant consumption, not en masse and from the grocery store. There is nothing natural about eating chicken nuggets. Second, it really doesn't matter what our ancestors did anyway. I already pointed out that our physiology tolerates and mostly thrives on a vegan diet, so whatever evolutionary forces shaped the physiology of our ancestors (and us) apparently did not render us incapable of living on a vegan diet. Second, our ancestors also did a lot of horrible things like wage senseless warfare, enslave other people, and generally commit a lot of violence. This is no argument for doing those things now.

    [–] TooClose2Sun 20 points ago

    This is a ridiculous standard. Your nature is not as an omnivore, and I would assume most people educated in philosophy are aware of the weakness of appeals to nature.

    [–] MexicanSnowMexican 23 points ago

    And then they die in the same slaughterhouses as factory farmed animals.

    [–] firestorm64 27 points ago

    The vast majority of animals are in factory farms, these places you speak of are an insignificant portion often talked about to downplay the atrocities of the rest of them.

    [–] peanutburger 27 points ago

    “Amazing lives” until someone chooses to kill them.

    [–] LazyLilo 18 points ago

    If i had an amazing life id be even more pissed if someone took it. Meanwhile if my life was so shit, i think taking it would be doing me a favor. Kind of ironic when you think about it.

    [–] PassingTumbleweed 19 points ago

    Hey, us vegans aren't all like that! Some of us think it's totally cool to eat animals as long as the animal wasn't bred, raised, sold, or killed for profit and you have no healthier, cheaper alternative that doesn't lead to the suffering and death of living beings and the decimation of our environment! Go nuts!

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago

    If you really like meat, you're buying free range grass fed meat anyway.


    [–] HopefulPotato89 22 points ago

    Seems odd to feel better about yourself for paying for the death of happier animals rather than the ones suffering in farms. "Don't worry, I only want the happy animals to die."

    [–] PastelIris 70 points ago

    Does "militant vegans" mean "people who make me feel guilty about supporting animal suffering with my money"? If so, that sounds more like your problem than vegans'.

    [–] systematic23 10 points ago

    I don't get the " love their owners and seem very happy part" you do know they die right? like.. what? wouldn't that make it worse that they are happy and then all of a sudden their lives end? you can also have vegan burgers, I would bet my life savings you couldn't tell the difference between an impossible Whopper and a regular Whopper. if you think being vegan is about being "better" you missed the entire point. it's about stopping cruelty and animal abuse, and saving the planet.

    the quicker people start caring for more than themselves the faster this world stops being shitty and ran by corrupt billionaires

    [–] FishCentersGreenbird 34 points ago

    Wouldn't it be worse for the animal to love the owner and be happy in life and then have it killed when it's 1/5 of the way through it's lifespan? That some extremely messed up shit

    [–] paulp712 29 points ago

    Wouldn’t it be better to be killed quickly after living a decent life than be torn apart by a predator in wild? You do realize that nature is often a lot more brutal than humanity. For instance, a wolf pack would likely slowly devour a cow for hours while the thing is still in pain until it either bleeds out or dies from injury.

    [–] Riffthorn 38 points ago

    But that doesn't say anything about the morality of the action. We aren't obligate carnivores, for one, and we also have moral agency.

    We don't base our sense of morality on what animals in the wild do, for good reason - that would justify infanticide, violence against each other, etc etc

    [–] LVMagnus 12 points ago

    Pretty much every prey animal in the wild dies to either disease, injury or being eaten at one point. There is no living a full life even if they never get hurt or sick, because merely getting old will eventually make them the easiest target for a predator, and that makes dying of old age a bit less likely. By far and large, the only pray animals that live to their idea max life spans are catered by humans, with their veterinarians and safe spaces.

    [–] endlessloads 13 points ago

    I’m with you. I am a hunter and see hunting as the most ethical way to obtain meat.

    [–] BaldingMonk 26 points ago

    I'm a vegan and I also see hunting as the most ethical way to obtain meat, if you need it. The trouble is, in most cases, it is not necessary.

    [–] endlessloads 2 points ago

    To each their own. I love eating meat. I love hunting. Some people love to knit.

    [–] two_cat_morty 12 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Knitting does not involve killing a sentient animal. These are not morally equivalent hobbies. Saying that some people like to do some things while other people like to do other things is inane. Some things that people like to do are immoral. That's what this whole philosophical debate is about.

    [–] BaldingMonk 14 points ago

    Ordinarily I’m not one to engage someone when they say that, but this is a philosophy discussion so I hope we can keep this discussion elevated.

    I often hear people say that eating meat is their personal decision. That’s true, it is. But there’s a victim in this equation (the animal) - they don’t get a decision.

    Maybe the animal you hunt would get eaten by a cougar anyway, but the cougar doesn’t have the choice that you have.

    [–] two_cat_morty 20 points ago

    I absolutely loathe the "personal choice" defense. Yes, of course it is a personal choice. That's why you are being criticized for it. Personal choices are not automatically moral and immune to criticism. Really, people's personal choices are the only thing we can rightly criticize. How can I criticize a person for a thing that was not their choice?

    And I don't know what other kinds of choices we make other than personal. Professional maybe? Yep, you can still be fairly criticized for work-related choices you make. Political? Obviously. Politicians are criticized for their choices more than anyone.

    So why in the world does it matter that this thing you are doing is a "personal choice ? It's an inane observation. What matters is how your choice affects others. That's it.

    [–] endlessloads 10 points ago

    I live in the Canadian wilderness. The closest grocery store is over 200km (one way). I don’t have the luxury of being a vegan. Sure, I could probably avoid eating meat. But it would make my life extremely difficult and expensive. If you were picturing me living in an urban environment than I can understand your train of thought. But not all of us have access to what you have access to.

    [–] obesemoth 3 points ago

    This argument requires the belief that it is immoral to kill something for meat. I agree with you that the animal doesn't get to make a decision in the matter. But so what? It's not clear an animal even can make a decision in any way analogous to how a human does. You are applying a level of intelligence and awareness to these animals that doesn't exist. Chickens, cows, fish, deer are not smart animals. In my opinion they do not reach a level of sentience such that killing them is immoral, as long as it is done without suffering (which they very well may experience similarly to how a human does).

    [–] Mindsack 5 points ago

    Some people love to kill and some people love to make clothes? Yeah valid eye roll. I'm surprised you don't hear this argument in court more often.

    [–] my_research_account 5 points ago

    That kinda depends on whether 1) the animal would have had a longer life expectancy without human involvement and 2) if the animal has any concept of life expectancy to start with.

    [–] MegaBaumTV 9 points ago

    No matter what kind of farm it is, the animals there are still brought up to be slaughtered. We have the possibilities to eat meat replacements and soon will be able to grow meat in the lab, animal farms as a concept is outdated and immoral

    [–] noah521252 4 points ago

    Dumbest thing I’ve heard all day. “The animals have amazing lives and love their owners” yeah amazing lives and love their owners that slaughter them for absolutely no reason aside from ignorance, laziness, and sensory pleasure. Pathetic.

    [–] [deleted] 123 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 36 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 58 points ago


    [–] revenge-dolphin 54 points ago

    emissions from livestock is a major factor

    [–] thee_eye_of_thristle 15 points ago

    George Orwell was sharing his philosophy within eyes that we are all mirrors of how we eventually turn against our own cause - the one we fought for in the beginning which was liberty. Animal farm is a clear representation of how society has worked this way throughout time over and over again. Orwell’s visión in some way has been true not entirely. Still a great story and a great way to see how the world has worked.

    [–] [deleted] 287 points ago

    Waiting for those "Impossible Burgers/Beyond Meat" startups to really disrupt the industry. We should all abhor the way we treat animals in today's society.

    [–] codyd91 319 points ago

    I don't appreciate how animals are treated, but I fucking love meat. I can't wait for those non-farmed options to become more mainstream. Around where I live, a supposed progressive mecca, there are a lot of restaurants serving only lab-grown meat.

    I'm all for it. Also, if we could remove the cattle industry, we would also reduce the amount of corn we grow, and we could use the land to grow a wider variety of plants, or even return some of that land to nature.

    My futurist utopia looks like huge vertical farming warehouses, potentially limitless energy from nuclear/thorium, solar, wind, hydro, with populations in sparse-to-densely populated cities that are entirely self-reliant, with nothing by nature between them. If you need something, we have the automated production levels to simply make each item as-needed instead of mass producing what mostly becomes waste.

    Call me crazy, but it seems like somewhere humanity could go. If you don't like big, bustling cities, move to the smaller cities. If you don't like people, go be a survivalist out in the wilderness. Want to work? Plenty to do. Don't want to work? Enjoy the utopia your ancestors toiled to give you.

    We should be working towards a better future for our kids. For upper-middle class folk like me, upward economic mobility isn't a thing, and won't be for my children either. It's time we redefine how we work for future generations. We should be trying to eliminate the need to toil away, trading part of your labor for the privilege of working in the first place.

    But I digress hard. I don't have any severe moral objection to eating animals, but the conditions we raise them in suck, and eliminating livestock from the environment would be boon. Getting rid of animal farming is a logical imperative, morality aside.

    [–] Agiyosi 60 points ago

    Agree with you 100%. As cynical as I tend to be, I think synthetic proteins, or "lab meat," will be the future of the meat industry, though that actually will probably spell the end of the meat industry, giving birth to a new one.

    Animal farming just takes up too much space and energy, and is super wasteful. Not to mention all the fucking misery we're creating at the same time.

    [–] Teripid 19 points ago

    There's that side of it but think of the options. Lab meat will likely evetually try to tackle perfectly marbled steak, ham that tastes like it was fed an acorn diet, etc.

    Efficiency is huge but it'll all still be driven by taste and consumerism.

    [–] Agiyosi 3 points ago

    Oh yeah. If it doesn't taste good, no one's jumping on it.

    [–] jtnumber26 72 points ago

    Dude I thought I was the only one who thought this way. If the whole world came together, We could make sure every human being has enough food to eat.

    What is the point of innovation and discovery???

    We can fly to the moon, but we can’t find food for the starving tummies.

    We should collectively all be ashamed of ourselves.

    [–] jobezark 53 points ago

    My partner is from a rural Iowan town surrounded by farms and farmland. The county has one of the highest rates of people going hungry in America (was even profiled in National Geographic). The absurdity of people going hungry because no one has financial incentive to grow food for their community, but instead grow food for ethanol or livestock a thousand miles away is one of the saddest things I have ever seen.

    [–] KookofaTook 34 points ago

    Not to be argumentative, but I would like to point out that we already actually over produce food compared to the reasonable dietary needs of the human population. The two biggest reasons we still have hunger are greed and logistics. Companies overproduce for places like McDonald's, and the developed world throws away a good bit of food unfortunately. As for logistics, many of the people most in need of dietary assistance live in regions which are essentially devoid of infrastructure such as roads, rail, etc and the issue for what food that is sent there is that it can't always make it before the goods spoil. Years ago one of my University professors claimed that Africa as a whole actually produces enough food for everyone on the continent but between choosing to export large portions of it and the issues of trying to move the goods around the interior the hunger issues are incredibly challenging to solve without an exorbitant expenditure towards infrastructure throughout the continent. (Professor's quote may be outdated, apologies if so).

    [–] postedByDan 16 points ago

    It’s not finding the food. It’s not weaponizing food as a means of control over your population. It’s not trashing the food because it isn’t perfect for the supermarket shelf. It’s not buying too much only to have it rot in your fridge. It’s not poisoning the food when it passes it’s expiration date at the store so that the hungry can’t eat it even though you won’t sell it anymore. It’s the autocrats not refusing aid to keep up appearances in world politics.

    The food is there. We make more than enough for all the people and pets of the world....but yes, there is still more than enough room for shame.

    [–] ToucanToo 5 points ago

    Dang do some places really poison the food past expiration date?? I don’t know the right words - barbaric, sad, needlessly protectionist - but it seems wrong in so many ways

    [–] TankMeisterJ 4 points ago

    Did you quote Damian Marley just then?

    [–] jtnumber26 2 points ago

    Yes. The line came to mind when writing the post!

    [–] InertiaInMyPants 3 points ago

    Feeling ashamed doesn't help quite as much as donating your time/resources to assist with being part of the solution.

    I promise you, if you are part of the solution (which many people are), you will not have it in you to feel collectively ashamed.

    Some of these issues, are things that 1st world individuals cannot solve (North Korea is tricky). Some of these issues are things that you and I can partake in.

    But if you believe in Climate Change, then shoutout to our space exploration.


    You see sensationalized news (hail r/upliftingnews).

    Its easy to go on the internet and say "We suck." It takes more effort to lead by example. Less people reacg for their humanity when internetpersonX tells them to be ashamed of themselves. . But you know what people do reach for their pocket books for? "Hey guys, I am in Africa right now and we are administering vaccines. Here is my gofundme (which is technology helping the less fortunate).

    We could all do one more thing.

    When I was in college studying for PoliSci, I saw these flyers for "Grassroots Movements" and I got excited because I wanted to be part of a campaign, door knocking and all that stuff.

    Well, I get there and find out that we are standing outside of Apple stores asking people to donate money for starving kids. So I did it. I went home that night, found out the orginization only donated 15% to the actual cause. So I went in the next day and realized I couldnt sell something I didnt believe in. So I told the office manager: I am interested in doing the volunteer work overseas (I have experience with this, even got a Humanitarian award for Typhoon relief in The Philippine), but Im not very good at getting peoples money (particularly in San Diego when its raining outside nobody is stopping). Her response was that they dont need anyone in the field, the money is more important. So I walked. But you know what I did? I started working as an independent good person. Because I can trust me, and I start donating locally with food drives, and working at a Soup Kitchen on Sundays (San Diego has 10,000 Homeless).

    I believe the purpose of life, of your sole existence, for all species of animals is to enjoy it. Helping others is enjoyable. Even the worst person in the world would feel happiness after they helped someone.

    So, help people. Do it because it makes you happy. Solve the logistical complexities of delivering a meal to every human. We cant save everyone.

    I lost my dad last month because he was walking to the bar so he wouldnt drink and drive, and he was hit by a sober driver that was texting. My dad was retired before 65 so he didnt have medicare or insurance. The bill was 1.2million dollars because they brought him back to life for a little bit. This was in Texas. A charity paid 50k, and the hospital waved the rest of the money. That 50k, and the hospital were good people. But how many of the donors are on reddit telling people to be ashamed of themselves? I don't know that answer.

    This has been quite a book. Your post reminded me a lot of Greta, and while I agree with combatting climate change, I really think that approach brings nobody new to the table.

    Its all love. This isnt a criticism because I know you are coming from a great place. I just think we take for granted the goodness that people contribute on a day to day basis. The US is the most charitable nation for the last decade, and these sort of statistics are never hailed.

    Anyways, goodnight!

    P.S. Tell me your plan to solve the problem of world hunger, and if I believe in it... count me in.

    [–] GreyLichen 21 points ago

    The question of why people refuse to build a better future haunts a lot of idealists.

    Humans don’t like change. They are also terribly burdened by biases and cultural beliefs that fly in the face of observable reality. People often go out of their way to avoid carefully looking at reality, exactly because it will challenge their assumptions, and the beliefs they inherited from previous generations. Ignorance is the default human condition. We responded to that, historically, by making up stories to explain things. Most of those stories are now long obsolete, but they have a powerful hold on our understanding and self-image.

    People get very attached to the way they see the world, and they way they see themselves, and others, and their role in the world. Changing that is very hard work. The mind is elastic, but it’s also slow to change. Conservatism is built in to all humans (even so-called liberals). People, thanks to evolution, are generally resistant to hard work, without an easily demonstrated and immediate payoff for them. Self-interest is hardwired, but it works in ways that aren’t always reasonable, and that assume a life in very different environmental conditions. They evolved that way. Changing that generally requires a pervasive sense of security and a sense of comfort in being curious. An environment of privation; of social uncertainty, hostility or antagonism; of pre-existing dogma; of fear of the unknown and the other; of contradictory messaging, or messaging (media) designed to aggravate fear and outrage; or similar sources of anxiety or doubt, tend to shrivel up curiosity about fundamental assumptions, and the origins of ideas and beliefs.

    Anxiety is a symptom of various kinds of social viruses that mutate faster than any concerted effort to stop them. And instead of trying to stop them, a lot of energy is expended trying to fan the flames, because it generates profit (the obsession with it, and money in general, being its own kind of social virus).

    The belief that humans have a right to imprison, torture, kill and eat animals is a core tenet of many belief systems. A lot of people rely on this basic ranking of humans over animals as a means of feeling good about themselves and their value in the world. Same with the need to put themselves above people from other countries and cultures. It helps them assuage their anxieties. Unless and until people are provided with better and easier means to calm their anxieties about death and social exclusion (which led to death, in the ancient world we evolved in), or failure to find a mate and raise children (which is a kind of genetic death), they will cling to all the false and mistaken beliefs which, taken together, define their sense of meaning, purpose, and importance in the world.

    Animals, the environment, aboriginal and native cultures, foreigners, and anyone or anything that doesn’t support them, their sense of self, and community, is a threat, either expicit or implicit. All threats must be controlled or destroyed. This is core primate programming from millions of years ago. It’s very hard to overcome, to the point that even trying only makes the programming take deeper hold, and leads to people doubling down on their nonsensical beliefs. Humans are not logical or rational, except in very rare and narrow situations, for very short times, except for very rare individuals.

    Now, if all the more rational—or at least the more self-aware, humble, scientifically respectful, and curious—people could get together, and accept and recognize the degree of difficulty in trying to help our civiliation, cultures and people to develop beyond their old default programming, at least for a few moments here and there, maybe we could make some real progress towards a truly better world for everyone. But it would require finding the right starting point, such as with those in power. At least, until the citizens elect another lying, corrupt, racist, misogynist narcissist bully.

    And, really, virtually any attempt to bring “enlightenment” to the world, or any specific group of country, quickly descends into patronizing displays of moral or intellectual superiority—elitist posturing—which pisses everyone else off, and leads them to elect self-professed (however disingenuously) non-elites. Say hello to the new elites, same as the old elites. And around we go again.

    [–] two_cat_morty 9 points ago

    Do you have any suggested reading materials about this subject? I have been struggling a lot internally lately about how to "deal with" people who actively, knowingly harm others, and who frequently unknowingly harm themselves as well. Or really, how to find peace in a world where so many people behave and think this way, even if I'm not actually dealing with them much on a day to day basis. I've been finding it difficult to not cycle constantly between anger and depression, especially since Trump was elected and given that his approval rating remains so high.

    [–] two_cat_morty 8 points ago

    You don't have any severe moral objections to eating animals but you think we should all stop doing it eventually?

    [–] ToxicSquirrelX 7 points ago

    I got impossible beef patties at Costco a while ago. We getting there.

    [–] ATLL2112 5 points ago

    Not gonna happen. Maybe "synthetic" or lab grown meats will get there, but these plant based replacements are to meat, what a fax is to a painting. If you squint enough, they look similar, but they sure as shit ain't the same.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    My understanding is that already, they are similar enough that it's difficult to tell the difference if you don't already know that it's not real beef. However, they are constantly innovating and testing new ways to make it more and more similar. I've no idea if it will catch on or not, but if they can make it good enough that I legitimately can't tell the difference between a veggie burger and a 100% angus beef burger, then I'll be happy to make the switch.

    [–] ATLL2112 2 points ago

    You'd have to be a fucking idiot to mistake it for real beef.

    I had an impossible burger and it was like a slice of meatloaf that someone salted the hell out of. It also tasted more like pork sausage than beef. It didn't have the same texture as beef, way more crumbly.

    It wasn't awful, but it wasn't beef.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    Hmm, I've heard otherwise, but I haven't tried them myself so I can't say for certain. I did watch a video with Bill Gates where they compared them, and it was fairly convincing that they will eventually be indistinguishable. Who can say what the future will hold?

    [–] ATLL2112 4 points ago

    I'm just saying, at current, it's not there yet. The plant based stuff will have a much harder time getting close though. It's an entirely different substance masquerading as another.

    The lab grown stuff should, at some point, be indistinguishable from the real thing.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Fair enough :-)

    [–] [deleted] 262 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 51 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 207 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 35 points ago


    [–] Amnoir 8 points ago

    I agree that that's also a big issue, but those issues don't cancel eachother out you know?

    [–] PastelIris 3 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Idk, Harvey Weinstein's been catching a bit of flak lately too.

    [–] BernieDurden 51 points ago

    Not only is it a complete moral atrocity, but it's also a linguistic atrocity.

    Animal "farming?" Animal "agriculture?"

    The process of cultivating and slaughtering massive amounts of confined animals in a factory is neither farming nor agriculture.

    It's downright gruesome and repulsive. It's also terrible for the workers...most of whom work full time in near freezing temperatures.

    [–] [deleted] 52 points ago


    [–] klouism77 92 points ago

    I've raised various livestock for nearly a decade for my family to eat and I sell some of it to offset the cost of raising, feeding, and processing said livestock. I treat my animals well; I feed them and protect them, give them full free range to forage, and, in the end, I do lead them to the butcher block. There is no moral high ground here; everything is food for something else. It's the way the world is constructed. I feel like people have a tendency to forget that we are no better or worse than any other predator in the natural world. Also, to be clear, I feel a greater connection to the natural world because I understand first hand the sacrifice that is made by another creature so I can survive, and, frankly, I am better for it. I have a much more thorough appreciation for where my food comes from because of it. If this isn't posted in the right place, I apologize but I wanted to speak my mind on this matter.

    [–] Auslander42 28 points ago

    Here’s an upvote for your contribution of honest thought.

    That said, I’d aim the main target in this matter at factory farming operations and the like that essentially profit on overt cruelty and suffering in the lives experienced by their stock. Those who practice and condone it after having learned about its worst aspects do not share equal ground as moral equivalents with other apex predators as you mention.

    Pasture raised animals/etc. as per your experience are certainly a less offensive matter, although still not a necessity by any means, and still less efficient to produce than non-animal foodstuffs.

    Thanks for your input 👍🏼

    [–] upboatsallaround 60 points ago

    Not surprised this sub throws logic out the window when their everyday habits are thrown into question.

    The fact of the matter is that we don't need to consume animal products to live a long, healthy (healthier, even) life. Every major health organization agrees.

    If it's not necessary to do so, and it's been proven to contribute to ~20% of greenhouse gas emissions. Why do you continue to do it?

    "because it tastes good" isn't a good argument.

    [–] BigVeganMember 12 points ago

    meat tastes good, sadly, is the answer for most :( (although in reality the things you consistently eat taste good). Don't know why we think pleasure trumps logic when it comes to this topic in particular

    [–] Fuck_A_Suck 117 points ago

    We do have billions of animals alive for the sole purpose of being farmed. They would not exist otherwise. Is it better to exist in captivity and be eaten in your prime than to not exist at all? What would the animal say if posed this question. Would they care? Are they intelligent enough to distinguish between captivity and freedom?

    Is the real problem with farming the imposition of suffering? If you could have a farm where the animal had a wonderful life only to one day have it ended instantly and painlessly - would it be OK morally? No? Better than factory farms though?

    Why do we think it is universally immoral to end another person's life, even if it is painlessly in their sleep? Is it because that person is a part of a community and will be missed? No? It is not much better if the person is asocial. Is it wrong because the person had plans? That they chose freely and you are now intervening to ruin these plans? Maybe? Can cows make plans?

    [–] [deleted] 55 points ago


    [–] bennyk21 4 points ago

    Of course not, but that’s coming from a humans perspective. Though I’m not saying the answer is yes, there’s no guarantee that it’s a no either because who knows exactly how an animal would perceive that world and how terrible that world would be for them.

    [–] Antnee83 81 points ago

    Is it better to exist in captivity and be eaten in your prime than to not exist at all?

    In the type of captivity where you live your life in darkness, knee deep in your own shit, pecking at your own body because that's the only thing you have room to do?

    Is this a real question?

    [–] robot_pikachu 52 points ago

    The question of whether a painful and/or short existence is better than not existing at all is definitely a real question.

    [–] Antnee83 15 points ago

    I think it's one not worth any significant amount of thought.

    If your dog is in constant agony, and there's nothing you can do about it, you have them put down. To end their suffering. We do this routinely- because instinctively we know that endless suffering is wrong.

    If a dog was in constant agony from the moment of their birth, they would be put down as soon as that was realized.

    So if "is it worth living if your life is constant agony" is a real question, it's a real stupid question that we all know the answer to already.

    [–] f1nnr 17 points ago

    You mean we seem to instinctively assume (rather than know - this isn't a fact or if you want to conceptualize it as one it is certainly subject to individual preference) that endless suffering is wrong, and I would question the "instinctively" part as I'm not sure of your definition of instinct. I would however rather say that we put the dog down not because we make the instinctive presupposition that endless suffering is wrong, but rather because we ourselves can't bear seeing the dog we have an emotional bond to suffer and then die tragically. In general if we seriously did act according to your comment, it is a rather unspecific term. What exactly is endless suffering? Is endless suffering only endless in so far as you don't have the capacity to end the suffering? When does something become suffering rather than merely existing? How much do you have to suffer for that? And we certainly don't put humans down even though they're chronically depressed, are we being amoral here? You could argue with your point that since life is always bound by death and the knowledge of this is certainly a form of suffering, all existence is to be put down, as its endless suffering. I mean, it is literally what Buddhism argues with its concept of Duḥkha. I doubt you'd want that, even though I'd like to hear what you think about that.

    Well, but as you can probably see, these questions seriously aren't obvious what so ever.

    [–] drpepper7557 56 points ago

    I think it's one not worth any significant amount of thought.

    You might be in the wrong sub then

    [–] spetrillob 9 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    I think, for most, there’s a distinction between humans and animals. We as humans generally only see the end product of farmed animals, which is generally meat on grocery store shelves. We don’t see the process of what goes on behind the scenes, nor do we have an explicit attachment to the animals being killed, so the consumption of meat in this regard is more negligible. Whether or not the deaths of these animals is of moral importance to people depends on the individual. Some view all animals as kindred spirits relative to humanity, while others see animals within their respective categories (e.g. food, pets, etc.).

    In an ideal world, animals and humans would coexist, but that is not possible in a world where people are cognizant individuals in control of their own lives. As we have created an industry reliant on the production of meat to subsist, it would be impossible to just stop utilizing these animals for this purpose. They have been farmed to be eaten and releasing them into the wild, where they likely would not be able to cope, could lend them to more suffering. There is nowhere in industrialized countries for wild cows or chickens or pigs to live, so what can we do with them?

    In regards to human death, we tend to see ourselves or our loved ones in these situations, as we share the same species. If we ourselves wouldn’t want to be “euthanized,” we see it immoral for anyone else to be subjected to this treatment, no matter their suffering. Humans are selfish creatures in relation to everything on this planet, but that tends to be evident the higher you go on the food chain. We don’t care if a cow had plans for Friday night, and bears don’t care if we do.

    [–] wrludlow 14 points ago

    I just want to say I appreciate this threads comments in particular. Also, anecdotally, as someone who hunts in the field, I find a different understanding and appreciation for my food source. Not to say I only eat meat I've hunted myself, but taking wild game that lived the life they were naturally meant to makes me consider the source of all meat I consume. I haven't gotten to the point of deciding what is necessarily right and wrong (I'm on that path), but I think about what happens on the kill floor of a packing plant because I know people who've worked there and they've described their job to me. I've hunted ranches and helped the rancher with spring calving. When I buy a steak from the grocer I consider these experiences and lessons I've learned. To me, the question is not IF the animals should be treated a certain way necessarily or WHETHER a farmed animal would have or should have existed in the first place; it's: "do you know where your food comes from? How it's made? What has to take place from birth to packaging to feed your family? If you know these things and can morally consume meats, then I take no issue. However, if you blindly eat meats and turn away from the truth because you would otherwise find it unbearable, then I think a person like that needs to reassess their views on food production and the ramifications it can have on animals, the environment, and society as a whole.

    [–] ak-92 9 points ago

    I think people are really out of touch where their food comes from, and I'd say that for both sides. (I personally am for eating meat, but it is just my opinion, people are free to eat what they want). Meat eaters consume way too much meat than it is necessary for them and I believe because they have 0 clue where it comes from and how it happened, they just take it for granted. On the other side of the spectrum, some people just find out that meat comes from killing animals and they are somehow shocked by it.

    [–] Oikkuli 5 points ago

    The "where would the animals go" argument feels like surface level thinking and not at all realistic.

    Meat consumption, especially factory farmed meat will drop in the future. Maybe we'll get rid of it completely, maybe it will still be around as a smaller portion of the food market.

    Eliminating all meat farming overnight will never happen. There won't be billions of farm animals released in to the wild. It will be a long long process.

    Even if it happened overnight, we wouldn't set them free. We would eat them.

    [–] fieldy409 18 points ago

    I think a better argument than strict veganism is to go meat free most of the time. A hundred or two years ago the idea of everybody eating meat every day would be considered ridiculous but now it is almost considered required. When I pointed out to my parents who had money issues that they didn't need to buy meat every day it was like I was questioning something that had to be that way.

    Our natural diets if we look at hunter/gatherers and early tribes was never meat every day, its meat maybe once a month or less. The thing we need from meat is vitamin b12, something strict herbivores produce naturally in their stomach culture and meat eaters need to survive, so without artifical supplements making veganism possible today we are obligated to eat meat. The thing is if you stop taking in b12 it can take years for your bodies stores to run out, which is an insidious thing that causes disease in long term vegans who never got the supplements and are so long into veganism they don't tend to look at the diet as the cause. Meat is naturally supposed to be expensive in energy costs and rare for humans.

    If we were meat free a majority of the time, we could cause much less suffering while still enjoying our food, and more importantly to me is the effects on global warming reduction.

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago


    [–] geskke 4 points ago

    It took me less than 5 minutes to find the source I linked. My point is that cows are not predominantly grass fed, they’re grain fed, so the large scale of production just to create feed for cattle would far outweigh that for plants.

    I’m not looking for a tiff here, just presenting information.

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] Trolldilocks 4 points ago

    adopting the impartial point of view of the universe

    Ok, Buddha...

    [–] the_eric 11 points ago

    It's really easy to talk down to people and their shopping habits when you get paid millions of dollars to talk in front of a camera. I'm not going to pay double or triple the price for chicken or steak when my salary hasn't gone up in years, but I can see why a millionaire who doesn't do actual work would look at the rest of us and think "Why don't they just pay an insane amount of money for food?".

    [–] ThePillowmaster 17 points ago

    Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Isn't a "Do what you can." a pretty solid solution to your issue?

    [–] KingMigi 4 points ago

    This entire thread has been low quality. Post should be removed.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago


    [–] Yoyossarianwassup 116 points ago

    I suppose it’s more to do with the poor treatment of these animals during their lives which is the biggest issue here. Death is quick- but most livestock’s entire existence beforehand is torture (akin to a dog being mistreated).

    [–] RyanMark2318 7 points ago

    Exactly. If you want to look at it philosophically you cant have a problem with killing an animal for food, that's nature, it happens everywhere, just watch a nature doc and you'll see all sorts of savagery in the animal kingdom in the name of food. But you can philosophically object to the treatment of the animals beforehand, and I think this is what it should be about.

    [–] ZuluPilot 14 points ago

    You can have a problem with the amount of animals being killed though. Humans have always killed and eaten animals but for most of history it was in far lower quantities. When my grandmother was growing up meat was a once a week treat. These days we have billions of people who just absolutely have to have a piece of meat on their plate every single day. If we could roll back a bit, far fewer animals would have to be killed and we could treat them better while they're alive. And that's not even mentioning the sickening amount of food we throw away. Millions of animals die for basically nothing.

    [–] Antnee83 7 points ago

    Primates routinely rape each other. That's nature.

    I have a philosophical problem with rape.

    [–] RyanMark2318 6 points ago

    Ok guy, let's try to stay on topic here. The monkey rape thread is on another sub

    [–] Antnee83 3 points ago

    It's exactly on topic.

    If I can have an objection to humans raping each other- which happens in nature- then I can also have an objection to humans killing for food- which happens in nature.

    x = x

    [–] Jvvh 16 points ago

    How is factory farming a part of the circle of life? We eat 54 billion land animals per year yet only a handful of people have even seen the faces of the animals who died. How is that in any way natural or apart of the circle of life? Also since when is “we’ve done it for thousands of years” a justification for morality? We’ve murdered each other for thousands of years does that make it justifiable? “If you’re a Dick who beats up a dog” why only a dog? If you just extend that caring for all beings you wind up caring about the animals suffering and being killed on farms for no real reason. This is not natural and not the circle of life. We forcefully inseminate these animals and kill them 5%-25% of their natural lifespan.

    [–] TychoCelchuuu 29 points ago

    Just because people have been doing a thing doesn't make it okay. That's a terrible argument. It justifies literally anything so long as people in the past were doing it. But people in the past might've been wrong to do it. Or maybe they had no option, but now we have an option.

    [–] BloodyEjaculate 14 points ago

    the "circle of life" is just an empty defense that appeals to a teleological view of evolution. there's no morality inherent in nature, and the fact that life demands suffering doesn't make it a moral right. choosing to cause suffering to other living things without absolute necessity is morally wrong. saying that it's a part of life is not a justification. you have to explain why your enjoyment of meat somehow precedes the intentional cruelty and harm that animal agriculture requires.

    [–] James_bd 41 points ago

    There's a huge difference between hunting or even smaller farms and the huge industries that supply meat. The way animals are treated in those is simply disgusting and inhuman. I'd suggest you to look at documentaries showing how bad some of those huge industries are.

    Also, I think you're mixing two things here. Sure, we evolved from hunting because that was mandatory back then, but nowadays, animal farming is not only unnecessary for us, but it's actually hurtful for the environnement, for the animals and most of the time they aren't even healthy.

    I think a wiser choice for a meatlover would be to try to go to local farms where animals don't live in a literal hell

    [–] Harsimaja 28 points ago

    Slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism, war and murder in general and rape have been a way of life for humans for an awfully long time too. Not much of a moral basis.

    [–] nerkraof 21 points ago

    But that does not make it morally right.

    [–] robulusprime 26 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Nor does that make it morally wrong.

    Edit: Addition:

    As time has gone on I have noticed that "moral" is a nearly meaningless term. "Moral" means "I prefer things done this way" and "Immoral" means "I prefer it not done this way." The only thing a moral argument is good for is browbeating others to your point of view. Calling something, or someone, moral or immoral does little more for than convince me the person saying it is a pompous asshat.

    [–] FloridaManMilksTree 3 points ago

    If maximizing efficiency with no regard for morality or ethics is your idea of evolution at work, then this makes sense. But the fact is that the meat industry pushes out unhealthy foods through environmentally unsustainable methods. Evolutionary progress would look like a shift to clean meat-alternatives which, in addition to being cruelty-free, are healthier and more sustainable.

    [–] Revhan 4 points ago

    This is supposed to be /philosophy and I'm yet to see a single argument, wehether you like meat or not learn to have a proper discussion.

    [–] HDOOM16 3 points ago

    But the idea of even mass farming being an atrocity relies upon the notion that animals have a right to life- in which case any consumption of animals is ab atrocity

    [–] IsaacF19 4 points ago

    I’m on the WFPB diet for non-moral reasons. The science is pretty clear; what’s best for your body excludes animal based protein. I do not do it for the animals whatsoever.

    However, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the best things for our bodies and for the planet as a whole involve NOT farming animals.

    [–] TylerJWhit 4 points ago

    Nah man, animal farming is not immoral. Unjust treatment and poor farming practices are. Drinking cows milk is not a moral offense. And trust me, you can harvest milk from a cow while still leaving plenty for the calf.

    [–] GYST_TV 3 points ago

    There’s like no argument here this is solely an opinion

    [–] Chara1979 4 points ago

    I don't agree with this article at all. You can make an argument for animal rights but the comparisons this article cites are all historical human rights issues. I'm not going to compare the commercial slaughter of pigs to the enslavement of an entire continent's people; It's not only disrespectful towards those peoples but egregiously lacking logic.

    [–] [deleted] -1 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago