To clarify, just because i don't hold humans to a special set of ethical standards doesn't mean i don't hold them to ethical standards at all. I would agree the ability to discern the impact of one's actions gives more responsibility to make ethical choices. For example, if i had a chimp in my family, or a dog or some other reasoning creature for that matter, i would teach them to the best of my ability to choose cooperative behavior over selfish behavior. Or on the flip side, i support the common social and legal practice of granting certain leniencies to humans who are not fully able to understand the ethical ramifications of their actions (young children, folks with certain learning disabilities, etc.)
But that's not really here nor there. Like many folks, i find ethically complex actions that stave off misery much less worrisome than similar actions that simply add to one's gratification. Common other examples: causing physical damage to another out of self-defense versus out of unprovoked aggression. Or stealing to stave off hunger or other basic needs versus stealing to increase wealth beyond basic means.
I find the act of killing for basic nutrition to be much less ethically problematic than most other forms of killing (territory, greed, pecking orders, etc.)
Perhaps where we might disagree is this: "For most people then, it is unethical." For i actually believe the minority of humans can maintain reasonable quality lives with zero meat consumption. I would at agree that most people, in the U.S. at least, could stand to eat significantly less meat than they currently do. Health concerns i've personally seen run the gamut from advanced anemia, decreased immunity, chronic headaches, digestive problems, persistent mental and physical fatigue, severe depression, etc. But i notice if i google health problems vegetarianism i see a number of lists of a more medical nature.
Sometimes these things get addressed through more careful shift in diet, but ultimately some folks are unable to get any dietary shift to work and were forced to go back to some degree of meat consumption, after which these problems often instantly vanish(!)
Ahhh, now I can jump in on the subject: Health. I dated a guy years ago who was, I think, A+ blood type and eating meat physically made him sick. Upon research, it seems that this blood type does not benefit from eating meat (don't quote me, it was his research). I tend to feel 'weak' if I do not eat some red meat every now and then and feel 'revived' when I do eat it. I am not sure if these blood type diets are tried and tested but I think most can make the decision to either eat meat or not depending on how your body feels. I have tried vegetarian foods and find that they do not suit my requirements. Does this make me immoral or unethical? I think of it as survival. Perhaps it is all mind over matter or even just what we are used to, but I do not think that Atheists HAVE to be vegetarians just to confirm that we are moral.
These days it seems that Atheists are 'pushed' into being humanists because we do not want to fall into the category that theists put us into: immoral heathens. I have been an atheist all my life, but I feel that I have become more humane due to age and learning rather than my atheism, though atheism does seem to push it a little further.
We debate morals and ethics here a lot, and I ask 'is morals and ethics just a man made emotion guided by law/religion/survival?'. Did cavemen have morals or just a list of rules mutually decided upon by the clan to make living in a community easier/fairer?
At the end of the day, most humans eat meat for whatever reason and I cannot seem to go without it, I for one, don't have any qualms about eating animals that are bred for eating - and like others, this does not make me inhumane as I do a lot for animal rescue etc. Is it a balance? perhaps not but I do know that I feel just not quite right when I don't eat meat. I have bigger concerns about man made chemicals in our foods.
For what its worth, hardly anyone i know actually thinks of morals/ethics as a literal list of rules, say like what you see in many religions. The idea that ethics could (or should) be boiled down to a checklist of behaviors divorced from their specific context is one of the more subtle, unhealthy contributions of the abrahamic religions to our society.
But most folks i know think of ethics more like very broad goals: try to reduce harmful impacts, try to respect people's boundaries and give them opportunities to consent to personal experiences, if we encounter opportunities to improve others lives try and take them, etc. Hence the comment below on how ethics in a practical sense (and really law as well) is a messy, non-binary, imperfect-but-still-important thing.
Not sure if this helps, but maybe i should clarify a more general idea:
I don't actually believe that behaviors can be easily summarized as ethical or unethical, rather i believe that our behaviors have ramifications on other creatures we share space with. Most impacts have harmful and beneficial effects on many creatures. But that's just kinda life: the messy process of weighing a complex bucket of ethical factors to pick what would be the best course of action overall.
So taking this situation, i consider it partially unethical to let oneself waste away from malnutrition, especially if one is a member of a larger community (which most humans are!). But i also consider it partially unethical to gnaw on someone else. And the devil is in the details as they say, and in determining how i feel about a particular creature eating another particular creature in any given moment i'd weigh in things like, the degree of nutritional benefit versus alternatives, the sentience of either creature, the pre-death suffering that might be experience by the creature, the environmental impact of the creature's life/death, etc.
I'm a meat eater but am conflicted over the way we treat animals. I was all fired up and wrote a letter to the editor when 100 people were protesting some cats and dogs being put down by animal control a couple of years ago. Never new it got published until yesterday when I accidentally discovered it on two different sites.This got me all fired up again and I was going to drop it into the pet debate about cats and dogs - then decided to start a discussion about god giving dominion over other animals. I see John has already done that. So here is my raging letter. Activists Stand Hypocritical . If that link doesn't load this link loads faster and has more context Animals in Canada.
My friend (named John as well) who inspired me to write the letter two years ago from talks we have had at work wrote me this yesterday after I sent him the links and it bears repeating.
"Believers" have this notion that "man", made in the image of god, stands separate from nature and that animals are here only for his use (food, clothing, amusement, companionship, medical/cosmetic research, etc.). This idea insulates believers from the inhumane way we treat cows, chickens, pigs and other "mass-produced" farm animals. They no longer have any empathy for animals, and this is another reason why I became an atheist.
@Russell I read your letter and agree entirely. I am unused to forums and have been surprised with the responses of many atheists to the issue. I am beginning to think that maybe one main incentive people turn away from religion is to avoid the moral (albeit daft) implications of being a believer. I thought that rejecting religious morals meant people would work out their own set of ethics/morals. I have and it is simply based on not causing unnecessary pain and suffering. Being an atheist I realise I am not created in the image of God with dominion over the other animals and that I am related to the other animals. I see no reason at all not to give consideration to the interests of any creature that is capable of feeling pain and suffering.
People try to come up with justifications based on intelligence, etc but these are just arbitrary.
Self-interest is a powerful reason for turning a blind eye to unethical practices - just look at the slave trade that was condoned by the masses not all that long ago.
I think we must take on the implications of evolution for our moral behaviour too. In doing that we can show that atheists can live moral/ethical lives, aspire to do better and are not a bunch of self-serving lunatics theists would portray us to be
John Major, I knew you would feel dismayed by the majority opinion on this site. Do keep in mind the many of us here who DO share your point of view. My opinion is that humans vary greatly in their ability to experience empathy. This will be quickly denied by atheists who have a dominionist view of the natural world.
Happy Earth Day!
I guess I'll have to.
@Hey Dogly. I know that self-interest has a powerful infulence and can bring about the kind of blinkered unfeeling, unthinking approach John D has been good enough to demonstrate above. LOL