Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think if you had to kill the animal yourself you wouldn’t eat meat

418 replies

Starchime22 · 29/03/2018 20:31

First off I’m not vegetarian, although I’m starting to lean that way, (as in, I eat fish, and occasionally meat if I’m in a restaurant, but never buy or cook meat myself) so it’s not my intention to criticise or goad omnivores.

But I’ve been thinking about how I’d have no problem killing a fish to eat, (and have) but definitely couldn’t kill a cow or a pig, and probably not a chicken. I’m not sure how many people could, really.

Is it right to eat something you couldn’t bear to kill yourself? Or watch being killed? I’m not saying it isn’t, just interested in what people think.

OP posts:
CoteDAzur · 01/04/2018 10:20

"Cote our ancestors were not the best moral role-models for us. "

Our diet has little to do with morality. We are part of the food chain. It's not immoral to eat other animals, just like the lion is not immoral for eating the gazelle and the cat is not immoral for eating the mouse.

I am comfortable with my place in the food chain, with zero problems eating eggs or the hen that lays them.

RunYouJuiceBitch · 01/04/2018 10:59

I've worked in a slaughterhouse. I'm comfortable with the process and eating meat.

It's actually the dairy industry that pulls at my morals; however I do still consume dairy products.

kikisparks · 01/04/2018 11:51

Cote I try to live my life morally. Imo the food chain is not 56 billion land animals and trillions of aquatic animals being killed each year. But if you don’t want to include morals when considering your life choices then fair enough.

pointythings · 01/04/2018 13:14

kiki I am an archaeologist by training and have a grounding in cultural anthropology also, and based on my degree I call bullshit on you. Nomads and hunter-gatherers didn't eat much meat, this is true - but not because they didn't want to. Meat was a scarce, high value resource. When there was meat available, people would stuff themselves with it, eating the organs and fatty cuts first because these had the highest nutritional value. They were also very good at storing and prepping - salting, smoking and drying were all techniques documented through the archaeological record from the Paleolithic onwards.

As for morals - where do you get the evidence to say that nomadic hunter-gatherers were any more prone to savagery than we are these days? You make it very clear that you believe you are morally superior to those of us who at meat - but that is a belief and nothing more.

lljkk · 01/04/2018 13:16

Claiming moral high ground is a funny one, though.
Near me is a vegan animals rescue specialising in former livestock, here is a long thread discussing some of the immorality of their (very vegan) stance and practices.

kikisparks · 01/04/2018 16:19

pointy where did I say our ancestors didn’t want to eat meat? You’re calling bullshit on something I didn’t say. I said our ancestors are not good moral role models.

I have said already I’m not morally superior, nor perfect, simply I have been calling out logical fallacies and pointing out that if you consider unnecessary violence to animals is wrong you will not participate in it. If you come back and say you’re fine with violence towards animals for enjoyment, as some have, then there’s not much more I can say. But if you say it’s ethical to kill animals that is not logical.

kikisparks · 01/04/2018 16:22

lljkk I’m not claiming moral high ground, or thinking I’m superior or being evangelical. Just pointing out that it is not moral to participate in unnecessary violence towards animals. Whether one farm sanctuary had some bad practices is a totally separate issue that’s neither here nor there.

pointythings · 01/04/2018 16:33

kiki your entire argument hinges on your personal belief, which is that eating meat = unnecessary violence towards animals. This is a belief and nothing more. Therefore your arguments are by extension also based on belief, not fact. It's exactly the same argument that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so - it's a faith based argument.

You believe eating meat for nutrition and/or enjoyment is morally wrong. Many of us on here do not share that belief. Our positions are irreconcilable. There are no fallacies in our arguments, because there are no facts in yours.

MeltSnow · 01/04/2018 16:42

kiki. Your arguments aren’t very clear. I don’t believe in using “unnecessary violence” against animals but will continue to eat meat. What you call “unnecessary violence” isn’t what most people think of as “unnecessary violence” however many times you say it.

CoteDAzur · 01/04/2018 21:55

"if you don’t want to include morals when considering your life choices then fair enough."

Hahahahaha Grin

My place in the food chain is not a "life choice". Is the lion immoral for eating the gazelle?

Some parents deliberately restricting their children's diet and thereby negatively impacting their optimum development will likely provide a great example of natural selection. I wish it wouldn't happen, for the sake of the children, but it probably will.

lljkk · 02/04/2018 08:01

Why are animals special? Why not pity poor plants dying just to stuff our gobs? The Jains view killing plants as a terrible crime.

Jains also drink milk & eat eggs so aren't vegan. Different perceptions of what is ok.

AjasLipstick · 02/04/2018 08:26

Plants aren't sentient.

But I do eat animals.

lljkk · 02/04/2018 09:09

So having a brain is the delimiter for what's immoral, but Why?
Does that mean that eating a more intelligent creature is worse than eating a less clever one? Why?

Babyplaymat · 02/04/2018 09:18

I consider morals in my life choices all the time. But also enjoy eating meat. The two aren't exclusive and to extrapolate that your morals mean not doing something therefore anyone doing said thing doesn't have morals is hugely simplistic.

ikeepaforkinmypurse · 02/04/2018 09:23

Apparently the smell of freshly cut grass is a distress signal, but people are free to keep chopping and hacking live plants.

PinkCrystal · 02/04/2018 09:30

I have had similar thoughts but also these on the other side

What about killing pests in the home or nits on your head. Taking antibiotics...They are all living creatures aren't They?

Do we feel this way now because we have the luxury of being removed from hunting and because things like nursery rhymes and kids shows encourage us to see farm animals as sweet with personalities?

Isn't killing plants also taking a life?

I don't eat much meat but these are questions I ask myself.

kikisparks · 02/04/2018 09:32

pointy its not a belief that killing animals is unnecessary violence towards them, it’s a fact. How is it not unnecessary violence? It’s a belief that’s it’s immoral to inflict unnecessary violence on animals.

kikisparks · 02/04/2018 09:37

Melt it’s very clear. People keep saying it’s not unnecessary violence but not explaining in what way it isn’t.

I’ll break it down for you.

Unnecessary- not essential

Violence- behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt or kill someone or something.

Meat is not essential. Killing an animal is violence.

HTH.

kikisparks · 02/04/2018 09:40

Cote I was raised vegetarian. Perhaps it did me some harm in that I now prefer logical arguments rather than to hide behind false constructs such as the “food chain”. Killing trillions of animals a year and destroying our planet isn’t the food chain. 93% of soya is fed to animals, 70% of world’s farmland used to farm food to give to animals.

kikisparks · 02/04/2018 09:42

Nobody becomes a plant’s rights activist until they are speaking to a vegan.

Seriously, no definitive proof they suffer. Definitive proof animals suffer.

It’s the worst kind of argument, just trying to poke holes in someone else’s valid point by misdirecting to something irrelevant that even the person making the argument doesn’t believe.

kikisparks · 02/04/2018 09:43

lljkk it’s not about intelligence it’s about sentience. Would you treat a dog differently from a blade of grass? Why?

kikisparks · 02/04/2018 09:47

Baby I’m not saying those who eat meat have no morals. Lots of people I know eat meat. They also have morals. Many think unnecessary violence to animals is wrong but still participate in it because they haven’t thought logically about it.

On the other hand there are those who think that unnecessary violence towards animals is morally fine and I do accept that for those who have that view there is nothing I can say to change it. I will call out those who say that eating meat does not involve unnecessary violence to animals though as that is not factually correct.

kikisparks · 02/04/2018 10:00

Having said all that I think I’ve exhausted what’s worth saying on this topic now and can’t be bothered to hang around for a debate on plant sentience which will ultimately go nowhere.

I accept I won’t have changed any of your minds but perhaps there is a lurker out there who reads this and starts to think about the lies we have been fed all of our lives and decides no longer to participate in the unnecessary violence we perpetrate on 56 billion land animals and trillions of aquatic animals every year. We cannot continue that trend and still leave a healthy planet for future generations, and it makes me sad that most people want to defend it but the status quo is not easy to change.

pointythings · 02/04/2018 10:06

You can't argue with the faithful, can you? kiki it is clear that vegetarianism is akin to religious dogma for you. You have completely failed to address the fact that your position is one of faith, not fact. There is nothing logical or rational about what you say. But you are free to believe what you want, as are we.