Posted by Mike Clawson in Mike Clawson here again:
Hemant just posted about a column in the Dallas Morning News that advocated the ethical treatment of animals raised for harvest. I’m all for that. However a few of you suggested that it didn’t go far enough in advocating full vegetarianism. This raises a question for me that I’ve wanted to ask for a long time now: leaving off health reasons and environmental sustainability reasons (both of which I think are very good reasons), why would an atheist be a vegetarian? That is, is there any reason for an atheist to ethically object to the idea of killing animals for food.
What I mean is isn’t animals (like human beings) eating other animals simply part of the natural process? Isn’t that how nature functions? Why would it be unethical for us to fulfill our role as omnivores? What is the rationale for concluding that this is morally wrong?
I mean, I understand the Jewish and Christian arguments for vegetarianism based on the Bible, but obviously those wouldn’t be relevant to atheists, so I’m just curious what your reasons are. For those of you here who are atheists and consider it ethically wrong to kill animals for food, why? I’m not saying you’re right or wrong either way. I honestly just want to know.
My wife’s an atheist and a vegetarian for reasons of animal empathy.
Since we ARE animals, we can show empathy for them and their plight. We are no different from them in how we experience pain and fear and love. So if you can get through life just fine and healthy and happy without causing that harm unnecessarily, why do it? Just because your food is a different species of mammal doesn’t mean we should have no empathy for them. We don’t need to eat meat to survive. So then the question becomes: if you feel empathy for animals, and they feel fear and pain just like you do, why add to the tally of pain and suffering in the world just for a cheeseburger?
I think the reason can be expressed as an emotion. If it pains you to think of the animal dying for your lunch, you probably won’t eat meat. It’s as simple as that.
Well, there’s the ecological argument for vegetarianism. That combined with a distaste for cruelty, even by proxy, and a love of animals (the cognitive dissonance involved in decrying cruelty to animals while still eating meat is amazing), was enough to make me go vegetarian thirteen years ago.
I agree with Siamang: the only reason I can eat meat is that I can sort of mentally block the steps between cow and hamburger patty.
So, again just out of curiosity, do you follow the same rationale as your wife Siamang? And if not, why not?
And now that I’ve expressed that so well, I think I’m having a salad for lunch.
I’m not a vegetarian. I probably perform some mental compartmentalization when I eat meat. Or my empathy is underdeveloped.
Why? Because I DESPISE plants!!!
The compartmentalization thing bothers me. I don’t know if this is valid, but I’ve always felt if you wouldn’t go out yourself, at least once in your life, and cause the death of a cow, you shouldn’t eat a hamburger.
I’m not saying everyone HAS to kill a cow, but if you’re going to eat meat, and you ever find yourself on a tour of a meat plant, and someone asks you to push the button…
I’m not a vegetarian, and I’ve been to my grandma’s farm and beheaded chickens before. I think I can defend my meat-eatingness, but that’s not what this post is for, so I’ll save it.
I have no problems eating meat, even though I am a naturally incredibly empathetic person. I think this is because I see it as being natural(and I enjoy the energy from all the protein). Never have I felt the need to mentally block anything about the process, making many of my friends uncomfortable, I generally refer to meat as “dead animal”. This isn’t because I’m a sociopath, or numb to the pain the animal may have felt, I simply prefer to call it what it is. Often, I believe due to my Native American Heritage, I will thank the animal for it’s sacrifice, and apologize for it not having a choice in the matter.
Religion–with its moral universe of souls, karma, and what-have-you– doesn’t enter into it at all. It’s strictly an ethical issue. If you feel that one should avoid bringing about suffering and death, that one has no ethical right to use another, and (the real crux) that other species of animal aren’t exempt from such consideration simply because we deem them to be different or “lesser” in intelligence, then vegetarianism (and indeed a consistent stance against animal cruelty) is the logical and necessary ethical course of action. I’m not saying anything animal-rights proponents haven’t said a million times, of course, but I wanted to emphasize that, for many, reason and compassion dictate these values, not religion and dogma.
I’m not a vegetarian, but I’m considering it. The reason for this isn’t necessarily a question of animals eating other animals being wrong. I think the process of mass-producing meat and animal by-products is wrong — modifying the animals’ genetics, keeping them cooped up, changing chickens’ perception of the day-night cycle in order to speed up the production of eggs, etc.
My only reasons for not eating humans is the threat of Crutzfeld Jabobs disease and the fact that they protest a lot. Seriously, they get all pissy about it.
In all seriousness, I don’t think humans are capable of consciously directing their activities. I’m not convinced in our sense of self or “consciousness” or “thought” (there’s a fine difference between thought and cogitation; all mammals cogitate to lesser or greater extents).
This doesn’t excuse anti-social behavior, like murder. Sure, you may have a biological predisposition towards violence. But we also have a biological predisposition to take the actor of violence out of our environment to protect us.
Okay, I’m getting off the track, there’s no need for me to write a thesis on the concept of unconscious morality. The point I’m getting at is this:
Morality is dictated by the fact that we are social animals, and bind together for mutual survival. We exclude most animals from our society due to their lack of capacity to meet us in our social terms. The exception of course is pets, upon which we project social behaviors that do not exist. And that’s why most folk think it’s okay to eat cows, but not kittens.
If, as I believe, humans don’t have an individual capacity for thought, vegetarians are a misfiring of our social instincts. The same projection of social roles that are visited on pets are extended to livestock.
I wouldn’t extend this towards people who oppose meat for environmental reasons. It’s an expensive way to collect energy for our biology, and it carries an environmental cost that’s a threat to society itself. Hence, it’s entirely explicable to oppose meat on this ground within the framework of unconscious morality.
Myself? I won’t trust anyone that doesn’t eat bacon. There’s something wrong with bacon-abstainers.
Religion (with its moral universe of souls, karma, and what-have-you) doesn’t enter into it at all. It’s strictly an ethical issue. If you feel that one should avoid bringing about suffering and death, that one has no ethical right to use another, and (the real crux) that other species of animal aren’t exempt from such consideration simply because we deem them to be different or “lesser” in intelligence, then vegetarianism (and indeed a consistent stance against animal cruelty) is the logical and necessary ethical course of action. I’m not saying anything animal-rights proponents haven’t said a million times, of course, but I wanted to emphasize that, for many, reason and compassion dictate these values, not religion and dogma.
I think that atheists and theists alike become vegetarians for the same reasons. Previous posters already said it’s because of empathy for animals. Your distinction between atheist/theist vegetarianism confuses me a little.
Now, I’m not a vegetarian because meat tastes too good. I guess I’m just selfish like that. :S
(although I’d prefer a human baby. Or a fetus. Mmmmmmm, fetus)
We don’t need to eat meat to survive.
First, I am not a vegetarian. But I totally sympathize with the mistreatment of animals in the food industry and would love to see a more humane system in place everywhere. But do I consider the killing of an animal for food to be inhumane? NO, not if it is done in a humane manner. Just as I don’t think there is an afterlife for humans, I also think that once animals are dead, they cease to exist. So treat them well why they are living to avoid suffering, but their death is not suffering for them anymore than it is for us.
Now on to the quote. I’m not sure I entirely agree. If you look back through history, many peoples depended almost entirely upon a specific animal or two for their survival. Take for instance the Native Americans and the buffalo. Just like some animals act as prey for others, I don’t know why the same can’t apply for humans and animals? The problem is that we humans think we are so smart that we can alter the natural relationship between ourselves and our prey. Instead of eating the occasional meat dinner, we think we need to eat meat at every meal. And we want it to be cheap, even if the costs of raising all that meat is destroying the environment. To me, that is the real problem, over-exploiting the natural relationship between humans and animals.
I don’t think that it is unethical to eat meat, and I think there is validity to the ‘natural order’ argument that you mention in the post. Just because it’s not unethical and wrong to eat meat doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of reasons not to though, or that you should based solely on the fact that you’re an omnivore. It’s also possible to still have empathy for animals and eat meat.
The reason I’m an atheist is because I don’t see convincing evidence that any religion isn’t just a man made fabrication, but the reason I like being an atheist is that the responsibility for my actions truly rests on me and not some higher being that I can cop out to and say “this is all his plan” or “he gave me dominion over animals”. So when you ask “what is the rationale for concluding that this is morally wrong”, I don’t think that it necessarily has to be a hard drawn line in the sand that says it is. I think that as a person who’s already demonstrated that they prefer to make their own decisions based on what they’ve learned, atheists would be less likely to feel the need to refer to a rationale outside of themselves in the case of why they shouldn’t kill something.
Atheists have already demonstrated that they don’t need the ten commandments to tell them that murder is wrong. I think that in the case of vegetarianism, they’re fine just saying that they’ve decided not to kill animals for food.
I think it’s pretty rare that someone needs to defend their choice to not kill something.
I don’t think that it’s about being an atheist - it’s just about having any form of compassion. It’s one thing when animals are hunted, and eaten, but it’s another thing when they’re raised in windowless crates and pumped full of steroids for growth for our consumption. Animals have feelings, and suffer also. They fear dying. It’s not like they’re robots.
Plus, I didn’t know that the bible endorsed vegetarianism. I thought that pork and shellfish were no nos, but that as long as one gave thanks for their food, then it’s all gravy because god supposedly put all of it on earth for human consumption. Hemant also made a post with quotes from the bible about how “vegetarians are pussys.” (Yes, I know it’s ies, but that’s what the post had).
And I watched a video about how since humans only have two canines, we’re not meant to be meat eaters. I’m not necessarily taking it’s word, but I do find that interesting. So in short, I think that eating meat is cruel (not b/c it’s against our nature, but because of how the animals are raised and treated).
Why should we force any omnivore to eat vegetables? If evolution gives us the ability to eat meat, then if considered alone, there should be no reason not to eat meat. There is no such thing as good and evil in nature. Survival is the reason that drives life.
However, evolution has also given humans the ability to be empathic to other people and sometimes other animals. Every individual has different degree of empathy towards non-human animals. This is the beauty of the diversity of personalities. Hence, i believe it’s really up to the individual.
But, we also have an analytical brain that can grasp complex and abstract concepts, like environmental damage, overpopulation, overconsumption, extinction and disease. Hence, further (non-moral) reason to be vegetarian.
In fact, there is absolutely no reason why our race can develop artifical ways to produce meat in the future. We have the intelligence. In theory, there could be a future where humans have wiped out all large animals on the planet and still survive. But do we want this future?
To clarify, since many atheists tend to say that science is the only legitimate way of knowing anything about our world, and since science would tell us that there is nothing unnatural about animals eating other animals, I wasn’t sure of the reasoning for saying that it is still morally wrong.
So as a follow-up question, would most of you say that reasons like empathy and compassion are scientific rationales for not eating meat? Again, just curious.
Although I can understand an empathic argument, he’s asking for a moral one. I can’t think of one in the terms one the goes very far without breaking down. You can’t give all animals the same rights and expectations that humans have because you would draw the line somewhere (cute calf to mosquito). In a “natural setting,” some animals are the prey of others, do they have different expectations of their life and how they are treated because of it?
I believe passionately that for environmental reasons (less so for health) that we should reduce our food production footprint which means drastically limiting all meat intake, and can make the sustainable (and from there a moral one) argument form that point.
It’s an interesting problem. Looking forward to smarter people replies.
Why are those “non-moral” reasons? The things you mention seem to get to the heart of morality for me, i.e. how our actions affect others.
Hi Mike! As an atheist vegetarian (or vegetarian atheist) I gave up eating meat after Easter dinner in the 8th grade. In all honesty, I tend to live my life going whim to whim, and for me, vegetarianism was something where I woke one morning and decided to become one. My mother hated it, and made me promise to read up on nutrition and learn to cook (oops…). In my research, I have found many things I dislike about eating animals:
1. The inhumane treatment of animals- overcrowded conditions, and painful slaughter, oh, and cannibalism, which is gross (often, they feed chickens dead chicks ground up in their feed…). I think it goes back to the question: “It’s not ‘can they think?’ or ‘can they reason?’ but ‘can they suffer?’” For me, I want to minimize the amount of suffering that happens in the world. For me, that does not stop at vegetarianism, but I think it is a good start.
2. Starvation in the world- a meat-filled diet generally uses more resources than a plant-based one. For instance, it takes 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef, which is wasteful- why not just eat those 16 pounds of wheat? Also, adult cows drink enough water (which is a scarce resource, really, and something we are going to have wars over before I die) to float the Queen Elizabeth II ship. That is ridiculous. Now, I am not necessarily saying that if all of America were to switch over to vegetarianism tomorrow, that the resources would be properly allocated all over the world so that no one would starve again. But again, its a start.
3. Other environmental issues- from farting animals causing ozone problems to destruction of South American rain forests for grazing land, meat eating is terrible for the environment.
4. Americans eat too much protein anyway. Certainly there are some unhealthy vegetarians and some meat eaters with fantastic diets, but generally it is easier to eat healthier diets when you move away from a meat-based meal ideal.
Just because our ancestors did something doesn’t mean we have to. One thing to consider is that anthropologists are now leaning away from the popular idea that men in prehistory were fighting wooly mammoths to make their meal. Likely the diets of pre-historical people were much more gathering-based than hunt based. Also, is it unethical to shop at a store instead of growing it all on my own, or catching my own turkey for dinner? If we are going to act pre-historic, let’s go all that way (by the by, you are going to have to worship some older gods now).
Just had to weigh in, I’m honestly a vegetarian simply for health reasons. I like to cut out the animal fats and it makes me open up more to healthy foods. I grew up eating nothing but junk food, and still at 24 rarely ate vegetables. Going Pescatarian (I can’t give up fish) helped limit my menus going out and eating in, and now I love vegetables. I will still eat meat on special occasions. For example, a manager came in to work today so we had (including myself) buffalo wings for lunch.
I’m a proud member of PETA. People for eating tasty animals.
Actually I’ve tried both. I tried vegetarianism for the health benefits and not because of worrying about animals.
To truly look at it from a scientific point of view, perhaps it has something to do with the evolution of our natural fear of being prey rather than predator.
Good discussion.
Some would say it does. One of the arguments would be that since humans were vegetarians in the Garden of Eden, that is the ideal that we ought to be striving to return to - that eating meat was a result of the Fall and is therefore sin. Another argument is that since animals are said to contain God’s “breath of life” (cf. Genesis 1:30), which is the same word used for God’s Spirit, that killing an animal therefore disrespects the Spirit of God.
I’m not saying I necessarily buy those arguments, but I have heard them.
I am an atheist and a vegetarian. I’m not sure if its all part of the life cycle, us eating animals and all, I’m a vegetarian because I don’t agree with the way feed animals are treated. From what I’ve read, milk is not good for you. Meat is not good for you. There is a link between the environmental issues and animals being raised for food. I’m sure you are all bright, thinking!, individuals and can all do your own research on the web. I have chosen, for myself, not to eat meat, poultry, eggs, milk, seafood, etc. For a long time I had a guilty feeling knowing that some poor cow was mistreated so that I could have a hamburger. I finally decided to make the change in my life. I have never been happier about my decision when a few weeks ago another beef recall happened and the footage of the cattle being mistreated was shown on the news. I saw my co-workers watch the video, get all up in arms about how terrible it was, then go to Taco Bell for lunch. I personally, get a good feeling about being an atheist and a vegetarian, knowing that I am not a hypocrite while I watch all the meat eating Christians complain but do nothing about it. AND - I really liked that comment about how “But to the best I’m able to provide, it will be meat raised by Christian small farmers in the Dallas area or otherwise produced in a morally responsible way.” Because, you know, all those current meat processing plants are run by atheists that don’t care about animals? We are a very small portion of the population…I’m going to venture a guess that the meat processing plants are run by “good Christians”.
I am a vegetarian precisely because I’m an atheist. After all, the bible says the earth and all its life is here for us to use and abuse as we please (it’s possible they actually word it differently, however).
I believe that I don’t have the moral right to decide who lives or who dies, and as expressed by Siamang above, I am not above the other animals in some way. Yes, animals do kill each other as a matter of course in nature. They also pee on the floor. My one advantage as a human being is all this grey matter jiggling around in here - that means I have the power to make the choice not to kill and eat everything smaller than me. Civilization means thinking things through, not just acting as other animals do. It’s so funny when people try to use the argument that animals do it (or that our teeth are built for it). They never try that with anything else - “Why not hump peoples’ legs? Dogs do!”, “Hey, fists are great for knocking people down and grabbing their wallets. What are you waiting for?” We spend enormous amounts of effort trying to be as unlike other animals as possible, why is eating meat suddenly the opposite? Our physical form and our ancestry are our limitations to overcome, not a prescription for our existence.
So because I know I can survive (and be healthier anyway!) without meat, there’s no logical reason to do it. That’s just the really simple equation. Anybody can ask themselves that question: “Would I be healthy without meat?” And the only reason you would then stick to meat is because it’s easy and it tastes good. Or, as one person told me “No, you can’t survive without it!”, apparently unaware of the existence of the entire country of India.
I actually wasn’t a vegetarian until about 5 years ago. I always logically knew I should be, but meat is YUMMY. Then I met my wife, told her about my philosophy and she just said we should go for it. So now we are. And it turns out that it is actually very easy! Breaking the addiction was much easier with support.
There’s so much more to it than just the ethical philosophy. It’s a logical choice because it is better for the world in every way - it’s ethical, it’s environmental, it’s the best use of our arable land (your meat uses up a lot more grain getting fattened up than my bread does), it’s healthier, and it’s less dangerous (I love not being afraid of what germs lurk in my cutting boards anymore). There is no way in which it makes more sense to eat meat than not, except for your own gratification. It’s pure hedonism. Of course, your mileage may vary if you live on the Alaskan tundra and whale blubber is all you’ve got. I’m speaking of life in big fat America.
I only miss ribs. I want to market fake ceramic bones that you can mold seitan or something around and broil into ribs.
And no, I never bother other people about their eating choices. You asked! Unless they eat Peeps. Why!?
I’m not a vegetarian but I wish I was. I think it’s disgusting to raise and kill animals to eat, especially when the animals are treated like they are in the meat industry.
I also don’t think it’s viable to have enough free range meat to feed everyone. I really laugh at these people who think that we can. I mean, has anyone been to a food distribution center? Do you have any idea how many cows, turkeys, chickens and pigs are slaughtered every year? There’s not enough land for all of these animals to have free range. It sounds nice, but in reality, I think it’s a dumb idea promoted by well-meaning people who don’t think things through.
Eating meat is also wasteful and I’m well aware that I consume way more than I should, not just in meat but in every way. If everyone lived the way we Americans did, I don’t think the planet could sustain more than 1 billion (if that) humans.
I guess if there were a way for all the animals to live happy lives and to be killed with no stress or pain, I might think it was OK. But basically I think eating meat is immoral. It’s probably the only thing I do that I feel guilty about when I think about it.
There’s an excellent discussion about this in “I Am a Strange Loop” by Doublas Hofstadter, BTW.
Mike,
My wife and I recently became vegetarians, and we see it as a direct consequence and expression of our values as humanists. I wrote about it on my blog, Friendly Humanist.
Here is a quick(ish) summary:
As a humanist, I believe in the inherent value of human life. To me, that value is based on two characteristics humans share: sentience (the ability to sense the world around us) and consciousness (the awareness of ourselves as participants in the world).
We all know that other animals have sentience - this is the basis of animal rights legislation, preventing wanton cruelty to other animals. And, although we can never prove that another being is conscious, we have almost as good evidence that many “food” animals are conscious as we do that the person next to us is conscious.
So if human rights are based on sentience and consciousness, and non-human animals have sentience and consciousness (albeit in varying degrees), then I have no principled excuse for eating their flesh for my own pleasure.
Contrary to your (understandable) assumption, my humanism and my vegetarianism are both important expressions of the same underlying ethical system.
Hi Jen. Those are all great reasons. However, I had sort of excluded those from my question. I totally get the environmental and social justice issues surrounding meat eating (my wife is actually writing a book partially on those subjects right now, and doing a lot of research on the topic, so I’m surrounded by books like The Omnivore’s Dilemma, The Ethics of What We Eat, and Fast Food Nation.) It’s just the killing of animals for food as a moral issue that I’m primarily curious about.
Why? It’s an interesting choice of words- to use disgusting carries with it all sorts of connotations. More importantly, “disgust” is a value judgment. I could be disgusted by fecophelia without making a moral judgment on it.
And that’s where I have to disagree. I don’t have any proof that I’m conscious, let alone another human is. In fact, I’d go so far as to claim that there is no consciousness. It strikes me as a shifty ground for a moral foundation.
I disagree with that. I don’t think science has anything to say on the issue. How do you know science wouldn’t say it’s wrong to eat animals through some research involving scanning the brains of cows and measuring their degree of suffering? But again, I don’t think science can answer ethical questions. At least not yet. (However scientific knowledge can inform our ethical judgments by gathering, discovering and clarifying useful facts or new information.)
And what do you mean by natural? Are you saying our scientific knowledge about how humans lived 10,000 years ago defines what is natural? Is everything that is “natural” good or ethical? So driving cars or flying planes are also unnatural. Most of our modern life is unnatural by that definition.
I believe humans are animals. There is nothing wrong with being an animal. But one thing that makes the human animal special is our ability to choose our actions. A lion has no choice but to kill the antelope in a horrible way causing the antelope to suffer a great deal. Humans can choose what they eat and can choose to minimize harm.
Getting back to the comment I quoted I think we have to be careful about phrases like “science says…”. “Science” isn’t some board of directors proclaiming this or that. “Science” is either the method or the body of knowledge gained through that method. It might be OK for cut and dry facts (Science says the Earth orbits the sun, not vice versa.) but how about “Science says vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate.” Not every question can be answered clearly or meaningfully with “science says…”
Maybe, in the sense that science can inform us about the origins and causes of those empathic feelings, but not directly. Is my enjoyment of sugary sweets a scientific rational for eating too much candy? Not exactly, but science can tell me why my brain interprets glucose molecules as sweet and the associated emotions. Will knowing those reasons stop me from tasting sweetness or enjoying candy?
A natural process like rape? I don’t understand how you came to think that atheists are amoral and follow directions from our ancestors. If you think atheists consider vegatarianism to be unethical because we used to be omnivores, do you also think we consider cars, planes, computers, and other things are unethical because of our previous role as hunter gatherers?
We do not have a role, we simply are, as agents with free will we can make choices, however this is determined by the past through causation and chance.
I am not a vegatarian but philosophers interested in ethics like Peter Singer and Colin McGinn choose not eat meat because of the inevitable suffering to the animals the process of meat production entails, and the lifestyle does not cost them anything in terms of health. They have just extended the empathy behind the ethics most of us have towards humans, to other creatures that are also related to us, especially the ones that may suffer like us.
Actually I would argue that it teaches exactly the opposite, but whatever…
I’m not saying anything. I’m just asking the questions. I want to know how others think about it.
Though if you’re curious, I would agree with you when you say:
and
Very interesting posts all around. I have to agree with some others here, that humans have eaten meat for hundreds of thousands of years. Some human diets relied almost entirely on the meat of only one animal (mammoth, buffalo, reindeer, etc…). So naturally, we are meat eaters. Even some proto-humans were meat-eating scavengers… it’s what go us out of the trees and into the plains. Talk that “our teeth weren’t meant to eat meat” misses the whole point of the adaptation part of evolution.
Some points I found interesting were that the meat-industry’s efficiency is now cruelty. I tend to agree that we eat TOO much meat. And the market has too keep up. It’s not the industry’s fault, it’s ours. On this topic, I can understand a desire to not eat meat. Not as an immoral act, but as an act of protest against overindulgence and the realities of our demands.
But there are some vegetarians out there who won’t even eat free-range meat products. These people have empathy for the animals (like for your pets as someone pointed out above) to the point that they refuse to eat meat entirely. I lived in Austin for some time and there is a large Vegan community there (from restaurants to markets). I came to the conclusion that their arguments are emotional not rational. The world is cruel. It’s always been us vs. them. And the development of ranching and livestock was instrumental in pushing human culture forward. To deny it as cruel or even inhumane is just a reflection of how the world really works…
But did you guys know that we may not even be having this argument in a couple of decades? Scientists have been working on ways to clone meat (by itself) for some time. Eventually we won’t need ranches for our meat products… just labs. Can you imagine eating a big piece of chicken as large and bone-free as a steak? They will also be able to mix meats for all kinds of tastes. It will change everything… if any of us live to see it.
These are problems. Nothing to do with morality.
These reasons may or may not hurt other people. It depends if we have a solution. In theory, we could development technologies to live in a polluted, overpopulated and heavy consumed planet (ie. we develop technology to isolate ourselves from everything else). If we isolate ourselves enough, we won’t affect others. So what I’m saying is that these are non-moral reasons because we currently don’t have the technologies to fix the problems. They’re technological reasons.
I don’t think this is a common practice. Even gestation crates aren’t windowless, they’re usually made of bars. Veal would be the only exception that I’m aware of, and being anti-veal isn’t the same as being anti-meat.
For me, becoming a vegetarian was inevitable once I had stopped believing in the god of the Bible.
God said it was OK for us to eat meat, so I ate meat. It was not something to think about really.
Once I realized that the whole god thing was a cruel fantasy I had to re-assess my values and actions and determine a code of ethics for myself.
Vegetarianism was a natural outcome of that.
Had to add: there are some people in this discussion (not just Mike, but Lucas too) falling prey to an age-old logical fallacy: the idea that something being “natural” makes it good or ethical.
Leave aside the hundred problems with the definition of “natural” (I always use scare quotes because it’s such a slippery word), I would think that a Christian, at least, would understand that “natural” and “ethical” aren’t equal. After all, human nature is seen (by most Christians) as inherently sinful (ie, unethical).
And atheists tend to pride themselves on their superior grasp of logic. Surely the centuries-old is-ought problem identified by Hume is known to many of us?
Science can tell us how we came to have the ethical leanings we have as a species (as well as other psychological and phyical traits). It cannot tell us whether we ought to give in to these leanings or resist them.
Neither can religion.
Yep. So science will remove the need to answer the ethical question at all.
Anyone remember the genetically engineered cow from The Restaurant at The End of the Universe (Hitchhiker’s Guide Series) who was smart enough to talk and recommend which parts of itself were the tastiest? Now that would be an ethical dilemma. What if the animal enjoyed to be eaten?
Hi Mike!
An atheist and a vegetarian, here…
leaving off health reasons and environmental sustainability reasons (both of which I think are very good reasons)
Um yeah, and especially environmental issues will continue to grow in our consciousness (I hope).
why would an atheist be a vegetarian? That is, is there any reason for an atheist to ethically object to the idea of killing animals for food.
This first strikes me as another “how can an atheist have morals” question which I really thought you’d gotten over. Guess not.
The question sounds like a funny sort of way of asking if there is a moral component to bringing suffering and death to animals purely for our own convenience. I’d say there is.
Frankly, all I need to see that is an understanding that the traits which make humans feel suffering and which make our lives valuable are present in other animals. What does a belief in God have to do with anything?
FWIW, I don’t have any problems per se with killing animals or even killing humans for that matter, but I do think circumstances matter. Killing in self-defence or for survival is justified, but we don’t need to eat meat to live, we aren’t even healthier eating meat. If there are people who do have health concerns, the sheer tonnage of meat that is consumed is vastly, grossly in excess that it can only be seen as an indulgence or a convenience.
And I for one cannot morally justify bringing suffering and death to another animal just for my own convenience.
I’m tempted to ask how, even with a belief in a god, you can justify this.
What I mean is isn’t animals (like human beings) eating other animals simply part of the natural process? Isn’t that how nature functions? Why would it be unethical for us to fulfill our role as omnivores?
Huh? I don’t get what you’re saying.
The “natural process” is descriptive, not proscriptive. It tell us what does happen, not what should happen. We should no more kill other animals to justify some mystical “natural process” than we should demolish buildings because that’s how gravity functions. At best an understanding of our evolution could help us select a diet that is healthiest, but the vegetarian diet seems to be healthier so I just don’t see how “nature” could be a justification. Not unless you want to worship Nature as some sort of goddess (I believe one native american responded above with this sort of answer - meat is okay, but you need to give thanks.)
Re “role”: Organisms evolved in a niche, but this niche changes and when we developed agriculture, we took ourselves out of any past evolutionary niche and it’s foolish to imagine that we can go back. It’s like a hunter justifying killing deer because it’s the role of humans to cull the weak - if even 10% of humans followed this advice, we would drive every deer, every bear, every wolf, every wild animal to extinction in under a year. It’s sloppy thinking.
Alright, fair enough (and tell us when your wife’s book comes out- that sounds fun!) and now that I am reading the post, I see that you said not to include those, and sorry for that.
There is no specifically atheist reason to not eat meat, from my perspective, other than that I, as an atheist, try to follow the general moral of “do no harm” (secretly, I am a doctor). For me, that is my first reason in a nutshell- lower the amount of suffering of the world, which, I suppose, is also related to social justice (social justice is a favorite topic of the Jesuits, who ran my college, so I have a difficult time not thinking in those terms).
As for following the natural process and all that, I think we can easily dismiss that by pointing out all the other artificial things we do that animals don’t- sky-scrapers, worshiping gods, computers, medicine, raising children that wouldn’t make it without modern medicine (rather than leaving them to die of exposure), trying to have life-long monogamy (fairly rare in the animal kingdom, and likely not something people did millions of years ago, at least according to Anatomy of Love. Clearly we are avoiding our natural instincts, and I see no reason to go without medicine just because animals don’t have any in nature.
This sort of logic stretches across all aspects of religio-reasoning:
PASTOR: We should follow biblical commands when it comes to killing animals because we should follow all biblical commands.
ME: Uh … except have you SEEN the barbaric cruelty on National Geographic and Discovery Channels? I don’t see too many of nature’s darlings humanely killing their prey.
PASTOR: But really, it’s a matter of NATURE you know. Similar to my feelings that we should only have sex in the missionary position because it’s natural. If we do it from behind we would be mimicking homosexuals. That’s unnatural.
ME: Uh … except that most animals do it from behind.
PASTOR: But c’mon. Homosexuality! That is also not natural you know.
ME: Uh … except that there are numerous examples of homosexual behavior in nature outside of the human species.
PASTOR: Well, fine, you don’t believe me regarding homosexuality. What about how god has punished the gay community with AIDS and STDs.
ME: Uh … except that lesbians have the lowest rate of STD’s and AIDS than gay men AND heterosexuals. Why are they getting preferential treatment?
PASTOR: (silence …)
ME: My feeling? I guess God loves him some hot girl on girl action! I guess he is a dude after all.
dm
I don’t believe in Santa Claus.
What reason do I have not to kill reindeer?
Again, to clarify I did say science can’t answer ethical questions directly, but it can inform them. What if, hypothetically speaking, science somehow showed with good evidence that plants felt pain? It’s silly, but you have to admit that new discovery would influence your ethical judgments on how to treat plants.
Also, other questions like “is it morally wrong to take illegal drugs” can’t be answered by science directly, but research in medicine, psychology, and sociology will certainly inform those decisions a great deal.
And as writerdd implied so succinctly, I think science gives a lot more information about making those decisions than religion does.
Natural selection is a theory of genes. It is fallacious to apply concepts of natural selection, ’survival of the fittest’, etc, onto the organism as a whole. While it might make for an interesting metaphor, it is not appropriate for a factual claim.
When you think Natural Selection, when you think Darwinian, the first thing that should pop into your head is nucleic acid. That is the theory - the natural selection of nucleic acid, and its creation of survival machines.
Andrew,
But there are some vegetarians out there who won’t even eat free-range meat products. These people have empathy for the animals (like for your pets as someone pointed out above) to the point that they refuse to eat meat entirely. I lived in Austin for some time and there is a large Vegan community there (from restaurants to markets). I came to the conclusion that their arguments are emotional not rational.
Even Mike understands that there are environmental sustainability issues with eating meat. Yes, it is possible that some select animals can be raised in a way that does not impact the environment. Free range isn’t sufficient, but grazing cattle on land that isn’t arable would do it. The bigger problem is that the demand is so huge for meat and the capacity to raise cattle responsibly is so small, that by choosing “responsible” meat, you’re just shifting the demand elsewhere. You’re fooling yourself if you think this is enough. We need to reduce the demand for irresponsibly raised meat, and the way to do that is to reduce the demand for meat in general. That means that the best way to reduce the suffering and environmental damage caused by the meat industry isn’t to buy better meat, but to buy no meat.
You are attacking people who recognize this and act upon it as being “emotional” and “irrational”, but they seem to be the ones that actually understand the full impact of their purchases. You appear either ignorant or irrationally attached to your diet.
The world is cruel. It’s always been us vs. them. And the development of ranching and livestock was instrumental in pushing human culture forward. To deny it as cruel or even inhumane is foolish
Now this is just silly. There is no “us vs them” when it comes to chickens, cows or pigs. They aren’t rising up against us. You’ve really gone off the deep end with this argument.
Yes, ranching helped when our population was smaller but we’ve outgrown it. Who is denying this? We can acknowledge that slavery and the slaughter of native Americans was instrumental in pushing the current US culture forward, but you wouldn’t be stupid enough to think this was a good reason to continue doing it, would you? So don’t act like what was good in the past must be good in the present.
Human beings are morally complex. Atheists are even more morally complex, since they are less dependent on the illusion of absolute authority that Christians and other believers have created for themselves. Many vegetarians are motivated by empathy or environmental or health concerns, all of which have a moral component. That’s not a problem for me, since I think that human morality is a product of social evolution (society ultimately a product of biological evolution). I guess from a religious perspective the question of why atheists behave morally at all would be just as valid.
Of course, I don’t think that eating meat is immoral, even though the methods used by the modern food processing industry may be (for both cruelty and environmental reasons). If PETA’s goal was to rehabilitate that industry in order to minimize the cruelty, they’d have my unwavering support. As it is, I don’t think that eating meat is the equivalent of either a crime or a misdemeanor. I am a product of living evolution, a process that has included predation for over 700 million years. And although my Australopithecene ancestors may have been vegetarians, the advancement of the Homo line was clearly in the hands of hunters. It is as much my birthright to stalk and kill my dinner as it is that of the tiger or the wolf or the shark, all my brothers by some common ancestor (as of course is the cow and the chicken and the tuna). That I don’t actually do the stalking and the killing myself doesn’t seem that relevant to me. That I leave it in the hands of cruel men may be, but the activists tend to draw such absolute moral lines with regard to the issue that there is almost no way to support the elimination of cruelty in the meat processing industry without supporting its elimination altogether.
Tim Mills, I have some questions for you.
First, I understand what you are saying here:
My question is how could something (eating meat in this case) be wrong if it has been practiced by us and our ancestors for millions of years? How could something be wrong that was essential not only in our physical evolution, but in our cultural evolution?
Was it always wrong? Or has only recently become wrong? Please explain your reasoning here…
I could make the same argument that you are making but insert language in its place. Language was instrumental in our development, but it is used to do so many bad things now… etc… This argument is emotional, and I think yours is as well.
Nope, that wasn’t what I was getting at at all. I was assuming that you do have morals and asking the reasons for them.
Which I noticed you went on to provide, so I assume you must not have thought it was such a stupid question after all.
And Adrian, I already commented on just that fact in the paragraph above the one you are quoting… Don’t put words in my mouth. I understand how the industry works, and the Vegans I am talking about would NEVER EVER EVER eat meat no matter the circumstances. That is a Vegan in my book, others are just vegetarians.
While I agree that many animals that we eat are mistreated, and that the mass production/processing of meat is detrimental to the environment, I firmly believe that many vegetarians and vegans are missing the point severely. The mass growing of vegetables is just as harmful to the environment as the mass production of meat.
Rivers are dammed up to irrigate crops. Those dams, while extremely beneficial to society, have a terrible effect on anything downstream. The natural flow of the river is severely disrupted, and can destroy habitats, disrupt important mating cycles, and cause droughts in areas that depend on the river downstream. The transportation of vegetables is also just as harmful as the transportation of meats. Veggies need refrigeration, just like meat. Refrigeration consumes energy.
Either way you look at it, as long as the human population is beyond what the Earth can naturally support, everything we do is detrimental. Until the human population declines (instead of growing exponentially), we’ll be doing more harm than good.
Yes, even the ignorant immoral Christian cares about the environment. Imagine that!
Mike,
No, it wasn’t a stupid question. I think it’s a strange phrasing, implying that you think that there should be some difference in the way atheists and Christians approach this decision, but it wasn’t a stupid question.
Um yeah. Just thought that there was a certain “I’m-atheist-and-therefore-totally-rational” block on his shoulder and thought it could do with knocking off. I think you see and understand more of the issue than he did and you were handy… No offence intended, to you at least
Mike Clawson (original post):
Really? The only passage of the Bible that ever I’ve heard cited about such things is right there on the first page (Genesis 1:26):
Like a previous commenter, I’m a vegetarian because I’m an atheist.
Mike Clawson, followup comment:
I find this bewildering for a couple of reasons. Yes, we endorse science. And what science doesn’t tell us (but religion tends to) is that humans are fundamentally different from animals because we have souls that survive our deaths, etc. So to me it seems like the ethical conclusion to draw from that is we’re all closely related, and suffering is equally bad whether it happens to a human being or to some other being. I’m also surprised you haven’t heard of the “naturalistic fallacy” - just because it is so doesn’t mean it ought to be so. Science tells us many animal species practice theft, rape, cannibalism, even murder and war, but neither believers nor nonbelievers think that means humans are obligated to behave the same way. Likewise, we are descended from omnivores - that means we have a choice as to what we eat; it doesn’t mean we’re obligated to eat everything.
So your information is different from mine (the Bible says we must respect creepy crawlers?), but even after that, you draw different conclusions than I would from the same premises (rape occurs in the wild, so we must be rapists?).
Andrew,
What words did I put in your mouth? And I understand the difference between vegans and vegetarians, and I think I addressed how the choice to be vegan can be rational and consistent. Many vegans tend to have a bit of New Age in them, but it doesn’t mean all of their decisions are bad.
I answered this one earlier as well.
Our morals change, our niche changes, our ability to control our environment changes. Just because we practised something in the past doesn’t make it right. What’s the problem?
Survival of the fittest. This essential facet of evolution describes why humans are on top. Because we are the fittest. Who is in the deep end? Who is projecting human thoughts and feelings onto farm animals? Not me.
We haven’t outgrown ranching, we are just over-indulging right now. That needs to stop.
Comparing slaves to cattle is deceptive and a morally repugnant tactic. Slavery was instrumental in our nations development, but it was wrong and was always wrong. You are saying that raising livestock for the slaughter didn’t use to be wrong, but it is now… WHY? WHY? WHY? You have a remarkable ability for self-deception. You don’t want to tell us or maybe even acknowledge to yourself that you may have empathy for animals… That might sound emasculating. But that is the reasoning I see behind your arguments. And I am not saying it is wrong. Just be honest with me and explain to me why animals that are bred for no other purpose than our food deserve to be treated as equals?
Epistaxis - well said!!
MikeC: Animals eat animals. So why don’t some atheists eat animals?
Alternative world MikeC: Animals rape animals. So why don’t some atheists rape other atheists?
Alternative world MikeC: Animals eat their young. So why don’t some atheists eat their young?
Alternative world MikeC: Animals eat their own poop. So why don’t some atheists eat their own poop?
Ahhh, the endearing output of the christianized brain.
I love the myth of “ecological sustainability”. If you look at the “bread basket” of the US, the Midwest, you will find this land is NOT made for agriculture. It is grazing land that is being destroyed by forced agricultural processes. The best answer would be to stop feeding the cattle grain and chemicals and graze them. I know it will never happen because we need to keep the vegitarians in thier soy!
If you want good meat, hunt for it!!
Tim Mills:
At the risk of going on a tangent, though I hope this helps Mike Clawson see where I’m coming from too, I take issue with your semantics. I think you and I have the same beliefs, but I don’t respect an inherent value or sanctity of human life, just the sentience and consciousness. “Human life” sometimes has neither. That’s why I’m pro-choice, for example - I don’t ascribe any intrinsic ethical status to an undeveloped fetus. It has the potential to gain that status, but so do a sperm and an egg before they even meet (I’m pro-contraception too), and so do the cells I rub off in the shower every morning (I could freeze them until human cloning is perfected). I consider “the sanctity of human life” to be political code for “souls,” like “moral values” means “Christianity.” Only the capacity to experience desires and suffering determines the ethical status of any being, human or not, even organically alive or not (I wouldn’t waterboard a sufficiently advanced AI).
So I’m actually hesitant to call myself a “humanist” at all, but sometimes I do if it’s the only way to be clear that I’m an atheist with ethics.
Adrian:
Your response to me asked questions and made statements as if I hadn’t JUST addressed those in the paragraph above the one you quoted. Your tactic was to make me look like a boob by taking what I say out of context.
I don’t think you have, otherwise you would have at least given me pause. Veganism is heavily laced with New Age, and being as they have that foundation upon which to base their beliefs, I have no problem with it. But the majority of atheists (in this country, and forgive me for generalizations here) base their beliefs on objective skepticism, method, etc… So someone who is a Vegan and an atheist (no New Age) is going to need to back up what they say with a logical, reason-based argument that doesn’t reek of self-deception or they are either not a Vegan or not the kind of atheist that shares my world-view.
Andrew,
Wow, so many misconceptions of evolution! There is no “top”, all organisms alive today are equally evolved and equally fit. You’re trying to describe a Might-Makes-Right morality which, frankly, is abhorrent.
Go with that if you like it, but no need to act like it’s justified by evidence.
But, but, but… But we kept slaves in the past and it was instrumental so it must be right! I don’t understand!
Or maybe it could be that it is as I said, our morals change, our circumstances change. We recognize that practices which once seemed normal and acceptable in the past are wrong and shouldn’t continue. If you understand that works with slavery, your argument is toast for everything else. Sorry, that’s reason for you.
Yes, raising livestock was a good idea in the past but not today. You must have an inking about the reason. Somewhere between total human population of 5 thousand and 6 billion, our impact on the earth changed. We are no longer living hand-to-mouth, no longer need to kill to survive, no longer have the land to allow cattle to graze, no longer can dispose of waste effectively. What was once necessary for survival has become a convenience.
Tell me: do you see no difference in killing if it means the survival of you and your family, and killing ’cause you just felt like it?
That’s the change in livestock production over the last few millenia.
A phrase Darwin never actually used, and not exactly what evolutionary theory is all about. It all depends what “fit” means, and it isn’t often what people think it means. “Fit” might mean not having eyes in a dark cave for example.
On top of what? We haven’t got to the end of the story yet. A million years from now alien biologists might say our big faulty brains led to our eventual extinction.
I’m an atheist vegan. I’ve been vegan longer than I’ve been atheist.
I don’t like to cause suffering. Consuming meat, eggs, dairy, etc. indirectly causes the suffering of animals.
It is NEEDLESS suffering. I can live just fine without these things. In fact, I live better. So if I can reduce the amount of suffering I cause in this world, I will. It takes little effort to be vegan. Sure, it may seem awkward to my friends and family, but so does atheism!
I like this page, when it comes to answering questions about veganism: http://www.flashback.se/archive/ar_man.html
And here’s a quote from Thoreau that sums up my position quite nicely: “A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.”
Randy:
Randy, most of the grain we grow in the former grazing lands feeds former grazing animals that are locked up in cages until we eat them. If we ate the grain directly, we’d use those resources much more efficiently, and waste much less land and water. We’d also emit less carbon, which is why the IPCC endorses vegetarianism.
Anyway, I have to go to work. Check back later tonight.