Decent arguments. Little bit of what about-isms there. We could get into a whole, long, discussion about how people aren’t treated much better in society, though we have the “freedom” to “choose” between equally terrible options to work for less than we need to survive, to “decide” what essential items we can afford and which we must do without, and to “earn” a living because we are not deserving of a life unless we work to get one.
But IMO, that would be more what about-isms.
This is also very contingent on the definition of what constitutes “murder”. Where the generally accepted definition, according to the Oxford dictionary, is the unlawful killing of one human being by another. Since the animals which are food are not humans, no murder has occurred. This is in line with the legal terms as well, as far as I understand, but legal terms will vary from location to location. I won’t dwell on it too much. The fact is that many people, apparently including yourself, seem to conflate “the intentional act of killing something” with the term “murder”, whether it applies or not, but the dictionary definition of the term is why I started this reply the way I did, indirectly, capitalism, and specifically the corporations that facilitate capitalism, are indirectly responsible for the suffering and death of more than a few humans. I would argue that they’re responsible for a lot of it. Firing people who are otherwise doing acceptable work for reasons unrelated to their position or the work that needs to be done, such as for interpersonal issues or simply to “trim the fat” by reducing labor costs (firing long-term, highly paid workers to replace them with low paid, new workers) is one such example. A nontrivial number of those fired for reasons such as this may fall into depression and commit suicide, and the corporation is directly responsible for the circumstances leading to their death and therefore has committed murder; alternatively, they may terminate someone who has fallen ill, since they cannot do the job sufficiently anymore (does not meet expectations, kind of thing), and due to the illness, and now being unable to financially pay for the help they desperately need, they die. The corporation is again responsible for that death and therefore has committed murder.
I’m not sure that line of reasoning would stand up in court, and bluntly, IANAL, so I don’t care to find out. Obviously there’s more circumstances, I only described two. I’ll let you imagine the rest.
The question of “is killing an animal for food, considered murder” is far more philosophical in nature. It’s certainly a valid consideration, but legally, animals are not humans. Humans are also animals, but not all animals are humans, and certainly, the animals we eat (mainly chickens, cows, pigs, and lambs), are definitely and distinctly, not humans. Therefore the definition of murder, in the context that it is understood under the law, does not apply. Certainly we are, in some manner, whether directly or indirectly, responsible for the death of those animals, but murderers, we are not (unless you’ve actually committed the act of murder).
QED: eating meat is not, and should not be considered to be, in any way, shape, or form, committing, or otherwise endorsing, abeding, or having any role in anything that is, by definition, murder.
The phrasing of that kinda got away from me.
Moving on.
Certainly farmland accidents happen, and in those cases, the people who die, could be considered murdered, by the people who eat the product which they were farming at the time. Certainly that has happened, and will happen. Albeit indirectly, the people who demand the food that the person was farming at the time, could be considered ambiguously an accessory to the murder, at least. I don’t think the court would agree with that line of logic at all, but, it is nevertheless, something that can be considered to be the case in a philosophical way. In those cases, where does the responsibility for that pertains death lay? With the company that employed them to death? With the consumers that demanded the product? Or is it nobody’s fault and simply an accident. The courts, I believe, would either side with blaming the company, or ruling that it was an accident, never the customers fault. Philosophically, everyone is at fault.
As you can see, regardless of whether the product being farmed is grain, corn, or livestock like cattle or chickens (etc), those deaths are technically on all of our hands. Meat cannot be extra murder, unless the meat is human, in which case there’s probably a lot of other crimes happening. It can’t be extra murder because no humans have died in the creation of the meat; at least, no more than with any other product of farming.
Certainly, we, the consumers, are responsible for the deaths/killing, of animals for food (at least those of us who are not vegans), but we can certainly be held to account for the suffering of the animals we consume, when they were raised for the purposes of becoming food.
It’s a small but important distinction. One only humans could make. What does that mean for ethics? That’s going to be a very personal issue. Everyone’s ethics vary slightly. If you consider that the product that is “meat” is akin to “murder” because you believe that murder isn’t just a human on human killing, then it would be highly unethical to partake in such products. That is a personal moral and ethical choice, both to believe that, and resign yourself to never consuming the meat of an animal.
For me, whenever these things come into question, I always consider two things: the legal definitions and guidelines of it, and I attribute the philosophy of “do unto others” (I think everyone knows this one).
In the former, murder is bad, but murder is human vs human, so, no help on this from there. It’s completely legal. In the latter case, I wouldn’t want to be tortured while alive only to be killed for my meat. However, personally, I could not give any fewer fucks about what happens to my body after I’m dead. Eat me, for all I care. So, in that context, the suffering of the animals matters to me. However, eating meat after the fact is irrelevant. Therefore, I give all the shits I can give about the quality of life those animals have, but I could not care less whether they are eaten by humans, other animals, or if they simply decompose, afterwards.
This leads me back to my original reply. I want to see better conditions for these living animals. I feel we should accomplish that through legislation and regulation.
Decent arguments. Little bit of what about-isms there. We could get into a whole, long, discussion about how people aren’t treated much better in society, though we have the “freedom” to “choose” between equally terrible options to work for less than we need to survive, to “decide” what essential items we can afford and which we must do without, and to “earn” a living because we are not deserving of a life unless we work to get one.
But IMO, that would be more what about-isms.
This is also very contingent on the definition of what constitutes “murder”. Where the generally accepted definition, according to the Oxford dictionary, is the unlawful killing of one human being by another. Since the animals which are food are not humans, no murder has occurred. This is in line with the legal terms as well, as far as I understand, but legal terms will vary from location to location. I won’t dwell on it too much. The fact is that many people, apparently including yourself, seem to conflate “the intentional act of killing something” with the term “murder”, whether it applies or not, but the dictionary definition of the term is why I started this reply the way I did, indirectly, capitalism, and specifically the corporations that facilitate capitalism, are indirectly responsible for the suffering and death of more than a few humans. I would argue that they’re responsible for a lot of it. Firing people who are otherwise doing acceptable work for reasons unrelated to their position or the work that needs to be done, such as for interpersonal issues or simply to “trim the fat” by reducing labor costs (firing long-term, highly paid workers to replace them with low paid, new workers) is one such example. A nontrivial number of those fired for reasons such as this may fall into depression and commit suicide, and the corporation is directly responsible for the circumstances leading to their death and therefore has committed murder; alternatively, they may terminate someone who has fallen ill, since they cannot do the job sufficiently anymore (does not meet expectations, kind of thing), and due to the illness, and now being unable to financially pay for the help they desperately need, they die. The corporation is again responsible for that death and therefore has committed murder.
I’m not sure that line of reasoning would stand up in court, and bluntly, IANAL, so I don’t care to find out. Obviously there’s more circumstances, I only described two. I’ll let you imagine the rest.
The question of “is killing an animal for food, considered murder” is far more philosophical in nature. It’s certainly a valid consideration, but legally, animals are not humans. Humans are also animals, but not all animals are humans, and certainly, the animals we eat (mainly chickens, cows, pigs, and lambs), are definitely and distinctly, not humans. Therefore the definition of murder, in the context that it is understood under the law, does not apply. Certainly we are, in some manner, whether directly or indirectly, responsible for the death of those animals, but murderers, we are not (unless you’ve actually committed the act of murder).
QED: eating meat is not, and should not be considered to be, in any way, shape, or form, committing, or otherwise endorsing, abeding, or having any role in anything that is, by definition, murder.
The phrasing of that kinda got away from me.
Moving on.
Certainly farmland accidents happen, and in those cases, the people who die, could be considered murdered, by the people who eat the product which they were farming at the time. Certainly that has happened, and will happen. Albeit indirectly, the people who demand the food that the person was farming at the time, could be considered ambiguously an accessory to the murder, at least. I don’t think the court would agree with that line of logic at all, but, it is nevertheless, something that can be considered to be the case in a philosophical way. In those cases, where does the responsibility for that pertains death lay? With the company that employed them to death? With the consumers that demanded the product? Or is it nobody’s fault and simply an accident. The courts, I believe, would either side with blaming the company, or ruling that it was an accident, never the customers fault. Philosophically, everyone is at fault.
As you can see, regardless of whether the product being farmed is grain, corn, or livestock like cattle or chickens (etc), those deaths are technically on all of our hands. Meat cannot be extra murder, unless the meat is human, in which case there’s probably a lot of other crimes happening. It can’t be extra murder because no humans have died in the creation of the meat; at least, no more than with any other product of farming.
Certainly, we, the consumers, are responsible for the deaths/killing, of animals for food (at least those of us who are not vegans), but we can certainly be held to account for the suffering of the animals we consume, when they were raised for the purposes of becoming food.
It’s a small but important distinction. One only humans could make. What does that mean for ethics? That’s going to be a very personal issue. Everyone’s ethics vary slightly. If you consider that the product that is “meat” is akin to “murder” because you believe that murder isn’t just a human on human killing, then it would be highly unethical to partake in such products. That is a personal moral and ethical choice, both to believe that, and resign yourself to never consuming the meat of an animal.
For me, whenever these things come into question, I always consider two things: the legal definitions and guidelines of it, and I attribute the philosophy of “do unto others” (I think everyone knows this one).
In the former, murder is bad, but murder is human vs human, so, no help on this from there. It’s completely legal. In the latter case, I wouldn’t want to be tortured while alive only to be killed for my meat. However, personally, I could not give any fewer fucks about what happens to my body after I’m dead. Eat me, for all I care. So, in that context, the suffering of the animals matters to me. However, eating meat after the fact is irrelevant. Therefore, I give all the shits I can give about the quality of life those animals have, but I could not care less whether they are eaten by humans, other animals, or if they simply decompose, afterwards.
This leads me back to my original reply. I want to see better conditions for these living animals. I feel we should accomplish that through legislation and regulation.