Atheists and vegetarianism

format_quote Originally Posted by Alpha Dude

l, aren't all animals just our less evolved 'brethren'?

I want to stay out of this thread but that was just pure hilarity

thanks

Good Q, I've never thought of it that way. Curious about the responses too...

format_quote Originally Posted by Alpha Dude

Do meat eating atheists ever feel guilty?

It would be considered immoral to kill and eat a human being. However, if you're an atheist, you're going to have the belief that humans are essentially intelligent animals and nothing more.

So is it a double standard displayed by atheists when they eat non-human animals but not consider it immoral? Why is it only immoral to kill a human and not other living beings?

I'm genuinely curious. Do any of the atheists here ever see it as a dilemma? Afterall, aren't all animals just our less evolved 'brethren'?

Good question!

I absolutely feel guilty. Producing meat (especially when produced in industrial farming) almost invariably causes suffering to animals. I try to live by the harm principle, so for me it is always a struggle. I absolutely want to minimize the suffering I cause. But meat is so dominant in the diet of my country and it tastes so incredibly good . I feel bad whenever I have eaten meat. My current ethical 'compromise' is to only ever eat meat when I go out to a restaurant and there isn't any good vegetarian dish. I never eat meat at home. But afterwards I always feel I have 'sinned'. I already eat very little meat, but I hope to eventually become a full-fledged vegetarian.

On a side note, while we cannot ever be sure that animals are truly capable of feeling pain (think of Descartes view of animals as 'automatons'), I personally think it is reasonable to assume so, considering their behavior and similar physiology to a human being. So yes, I indeed do consider humans highly developed animals. Though the question of sentience always bugs me in the back of my mind. Are animals sentient? If they are not, can they feel pain? How can we ever answer this question!?!?

Personally I really see no reason to consider pain suffered by animals of less relevance than that suffered by humans. Sure, they are 'inferior' in the sense that they are less developed, incapable of reason, and generally just plain dumb. But pain is pain, I do not believe we can simply assume that the pain they feel is less intense or real than our pain. Intelligence is simply not really relevant when discussing pain and suffering, just like it isn't less evil to cause pain to babies or severely mentally handicapped just because their are intellectually underdeveloped.

Mind you, this sounds nice in principle of course, but like with many ethical questions, it is very difficult to know where to draw the line. Isn't there a cut-off point at which intelligence and physiology becomes so primitive that we can reasonably assume there isn't really anything 'there' to feel the pain, there is no one at home so to speak. I mean, is a whale suffering 'worse' than that of a fly? I would think so, but it is hard to rationally and philosophically defend that position. Just because something 'feels' like an acceptable thing to do, doesn't mean it is. We always need to reevaluate our moral compass to absolutely minimize injustice and suffering. We should never become complacent in this, let alone let tradition determine what is 'right'.

That is my ethical position. So to answer your question, yes I do believe many atheists are indeed inconsistent on this matter. Many atheists try to live by the principle of 'do no harm', yet most nonchalantly ignore animal suffering, as if animals are incapable of truly being 'harmed'. They are simply forgotten in the whole harm 'equation'. I think this has a lot to do with the dominant powers of customs and tradition. Eating meat is so 'normal' in our culture, it is quickly taken for granted and branded uncontroversial.

Just to be clear, btw, for me the most urgent moral question deals with how animals are bred, kept and slaughtered. Were the life of livestock generally pleasant and death instant and painless, the harm caused would be considerably less obvious. For me, it is not the killing as such that is most problematic, it is the way we treat animals while they are alive.

While I agree this question is mostly relevant to atheists, animal suffering is a moral issue for all of course. I mean, as far as I am aware, Islam requires you to treat animals with respect, so there appears to be an implicit acceptance that animals are more than just tools, but also sentient beings capable of feelings? So I will ask a question of my own. Although your God allows you to kill an animal for meat or even sacrifice, does he require it of you? Do you really think this world becomes a better place when you all, say, collectively ritually slaughter an animal on Eid? Especially considering the circumstances in which animals are bred and transported now-a-days, namely in an industrialized manner? Surely these are difficult moral questions to all of us, atheist or not.

format_quote Originally Posted by Alpha Dude

Do meat eating atheists ever feel guilty?

It would be considered immoral to kill and eat a human being. However, if you're an atheist, you're going to have the belief that humans are essentially intelligent animals and nothing more.

So is it a double standard displayed by atheists when they eat non-human animals but not consider it immoral? Why is it only immoral to kill a human and not other living beings?

I'm genuinely curious. Do any of the atheists here ever see it as a dilemma? Afterall, aren't all animals just our less evolved 'brethren'?

Hmmm...Good question!

Perhaps because they believe in evolution, and survival of the fittest and all that. So if they had to eat their brethren (though in survival of the fittest there's no concept of brethren - it is a cut throat world affter all!) to give them more iron etc, they really wouldn't bat an eyelid, as that would be considered normal. As to whether it's immoral, not sure where their standards of morality come from.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan

Hmmm...Good question!

Perhaps because they believe in evolution, and survival of the fittest and all that. So if they had to eat their brethren (though in survival of the fittest there's no concept of brethren - it is a cut throat world affter all!) to give them more iron etc, they really wouldn't bat an eyelid, as that would be considered normal.

To an extend yes. It is impractical to completely respect all animal life. You need to do pest control for example. We also need to do animal testing for potential life-changing medicines. I'll let atheists who have less or no qualms eating meat explain themselves further though, as I am generally unconvinced by any other arguments.

As to whether it's immoral, not sure where their standards of morality come from.

Well, for me it comes from something like utilitarianism in combination with a 'do no harm' principle. In essence, the purpose is to maximize happiness all around. In my interpretation this concerns the 'happiness' of all sentient beings, so that includes animals.

We also almost all feel empathy of course, which should always play a role in guiding our actions in personal life. However, empathy is not a very useful tool when we need to think big and organize society. Firstly, we appear largely incapable of 'scaling' empathy, seeing one baby cry generally 'hurts' us more than the knowledge that bad labor conditions in China are causing suffering. In other words, we have trouble empathizing with things we can not directly see. Secondly, we also have trouble empathizing with beings we cannot directly relate with, beings that do not express feelings in ways we can identify. I mean, we can generally tell when, say, a dog is happy, stressed, excited, in pain, or comfortable, but we have a hard time doing the same for a bat or even cow, let alone a fish.

I do feel a kinship with many animals and nature itself, yes. And I do feel guilty killing and eating animals, especially mammals. You don't? Can you walk out with a butcher knife, slaughter a cow for beef and feel nothing at all?

I will bet you many many religious folks couldn't answer yes to that question and I will further bet you that this has nothing to do with religious belief (or lack thereof) and everything to do with empathy, which is right in our genes.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insane Insaan

As to whether it's immoral, not sure where their standards of morality come from.

Empathy and social contract/programming. You religious folks have this too. Its just that your programming includes religious indoctrination. Sometimes that indoctrination may say things like animals were created to serve man or this existence is just a waiting room or testing ground for the next one, but I don't think its too often that such beliefs lead people to care less for animals or care less to preserve the earth.

Now, all that said, yes I eat meat sometimes. Is that hypocritical? Yes, yes it is. Its easier to eat a hamburger when you haven't met the cow. But then thats just like you get less distraught being told that 100 people died in a plane crash than being told one person you know did. Its just how the human mind works, and it has nothing to do with religious belief or lack of it.

There are many non-Muslims who have studied Islam. Most of them have only read books on Islam written by biased critics of Islam. These non-Muslims have a different set of twenty common misconceptions about Islam. For instance, they claim to have found contradictions in the Qur'an, they contend that the Qur'an is unscientific etc.


Question: Killing an animal is a ruthless act. Why then do Muslims consume non-vegetarian food?

Answer: ‘Vegetarianism’ is now a movement the world over. Many even associate it with animal rights. Indeed, a large number of people consider the consumption of meat and other non-vegetarian products as a violation of animal rights.

Islam enjoins mercy and compassion for all living creatures. At the same time Islam maintains that Allah has created the earth and its wondrous flora and fauna for the benefit of mankind. It is upto mankind to use every resource in this world judiciously, as a ‘niyamat’ ( Divine blessing ) and ‘amanat’ ( trust ) from Allah.

Let us look at various other aspects of this argument.

1. A Muslim can be a pure vegetarian
A Muslim can be a very good Muslim despite being a pure vegetarian. It is not compulsory for a Muslim to have non-vegetarian food.

2. Qur’an permits Muslims to have non-veg
The Qur’an, however permits a Muslim to have non-vegetarian food. The following Qur’anic verses are proof of this fact:

a. “O ye who believe! Fulfil (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals with the exceptions named.” [Al-Qur’an 5:1]

b. “And cattle He has created for you (men): from them Ye derive warmth, and numerous benefits, And of their (meat) ye eat.” [Al-Qur’an 16:5]

c. “And in cattle (too) ye have an instructive example: From within their bodies We produce (milk) for you To drink; there are, in them, (Besides), numerous (other) Benefits for you; and of their (meat) ye eat” [Al-Qur’an 23:21]

3. Meat is nutritious

Meat is rich in protein, iron, vitamin B1 and niacin. Non-vegetarian food is a good source of excellent protein.

4. Humans have Omnivorous set of teeth

If you observe the teeth of herbivorous animals like the cow, goat and sheep, you will find something strikingly similar in all of them. All these animals have a flat set of teeth i.e. suited for herbivorous diet. If you observe the set of teeth of the carnivorous animals like the lion or tiger, they all have a pointed set of teeth i.e. suited for a carnivorous diet. If you analyze the set of teeth of humans, you find that they have flat teeth as well as pointed teeth. Thus they have teeth suited for both herbivorous as well as carnivorous food i.e. they are omnivorous. One may ask, if Almighty Allah wanted humans to have only vegetables, why did He provide us also with pointed teeth? It is logical that He expected us to have both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food.

5. Human beings can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian foods

The digestive system of herbivorous animals can digest only vegetables. The digestive system of carnivorous animals can digest only meat. But the digestive system of humans can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. If Almighty Allah wanted us to have only vegetables then why did He give us a digestive system that can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian foods?

6. Hindu scriptures give permission to have non-veg

a. There are many Hindus Brahmins who are strictly vegetarian. They think that it is against their religion to consume non-vegetarian food. In fact the Hindu scriptures permit a person to have meat. The scriptures mention Hindu sages and saints consuming non-vegetarian foods.



b. It is mentioned in Ayodhya Khandam, verses 20,26 and 94 that when Rama was sent for Banavas he told his mother that he would have to sacrifice his tasty meat dishes. If Rama had to sacrifice his tasty meat dishes it meant that Rama had likeness for meat. If Rama can have meat, why can’t the Hindus have meat?

7 Hinduism was influenced by other religions
Though Hindu Scriptures permit its followers to have non-veg foods, many Hindus adopted the vegetarian system because they were influenced by other religions like Jainism.

8 Even plants have life
Certain religions have adopted pure vegetarianism because they are totally against the killing of living creatures. If a person can survive without killing any living creature, I would be the first person to adopt such a way of life. In the past people thought plants were lifeless. Today it is a well established universal fact that even plants have life. Thus their logic of not killing living creatures is not fulfilled even by being a pure vegetarian.

9 Even plants can feel pain
They further argue that plants cannot feel pain, therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime when compared to killing an animal. Today science tells us that even plants can feel pain. But the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human being. This is due to the inability of the human ear to hear sounds that are not in the audible range i.e. 20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz.

Anything below and above this range cannot be heard by a human being. A dog can hear up to 40,000 Hertz. Thus there are silent dog whistles that have a frequency of more than 20,000 Hertz and less than 40,000 Hertz. These whistles are only heard by dogs and not by human beings. The dog recognizes the master’s whistle and comes to the master. There was research done by a farmer who invented an instrument which converted the cry of the plant so that it could be heard by human being. He was able to realize immediately when the plant itself cried for water.

10 Killing a living creature with 2 senses less is not a lesser crime. Once a vegetarian argues his case by saying that plants only have two or three senses while the animals have five senses. Therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime than killing an animal.

Suppose your brother is born deaf and dumb and has two senses less as compared to other human beings. He becomes mature and someone murders him. Would you ask the law to give the murderer a lesser punishment because your brother has two senses less? In fact you would say that he has killed a ‘masoom’, an innocent person and you should give the murderer a greater punishment. Islam is not based on such logic.

In fact the Qur’an says: “O ye people! Eat of what is on earth, lawful and good” [Al-Qur’an 2:168]

11 Over population of cattle
If every human being was a vegetarian, it would lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, since their reproduction and multiplication is very swift. Allah (SWT) in His Divine Wisdom knows how to maintain the balance of His creation appropriately. No wonder He has permitted us to have the meat of the cattle.

12 Cost of meat is reasonable since all aren’t non-vegetarian

I do not mind if some people are pure vegetarian. However they should not condemn non-vegetarians as ruthless. In fact if all people become non-vegetarians then personally I would be a loser since the prices of meat would rise.

Brother Sheikh Yusuf Estes and Bilal Philips tells about: About being Vegetarian and not seeing it as a part of your religion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WqHzTJMCjA

format_quote Originally Posted by Alpha Dude

Do meat eating atheists ever feel guilty?

It would be considered immoral to kill and eat a human being. However, if you're an atheist, you're going to have the belief that humans are essentially intelligent animals and nothing more.

So is it a double standard displayed by atheists when they eat non-human animals but not consider it immoral? Why is it only immoral to kill a human and not other living beings?

I'm genuinely curious. Do any of the atheists here ever see it as a dilemma? Afterall, aren't all animals just our less evolved 'brethren'?

You have almost answered your own question in your second paragraph, but I think the 'nothing more' is what throws you off the scent. I would suggest that far from 'nothing more', it is in fact intelligence and cognitive capacity in a wider sense that is the most significant issue to atheists considering this issue. A great many people, if not most, who would happily eat a beefburger or a lamb chop would not choose to eat a dolphin steak and would be repulsed by the idea of same. Hence to me there is no 'double standard', at least for the reason you suggest. What there may be, though, is a huge doubt at exactly what point that threshold is reached and I certainly wouldn't disagree many meat-eaters find that a question they would prefer to ignore. But there is still a huge range of eating habits across those who do (or once did!); veganism, vegetarianism, eating fish but not meat, poultry but not 'red' meat, and so on.

Personally I find the idea of making such distinctions based on intelligence makes rather more sense than the belief that the most destructive, and self-destructive, species in the history of life on Earth is somehow 'special' in any other regard than possessing the unique capacity to realize that unpleasant fact about itself. There are also far more relevant arguments for vegetarianism than those of the 'pink and fluffy' type IMHO, principally those related to the economics of food production and hence distribution of adequate amounts to all who need it in a world with an ever-increasing population.

format_quote Originally Posted by Alpha Dude

Do meat eating atheists ever feel guilty?

In my opinion, there is no difference between animals and plants. Can anyone explain me what makes animals not proper to eat and not plants.
Whether we eat plants+animal, or we do not eat anything (and we die )

format_quote Originally Posted by Alpha Dude

It would be considered immoral to kill and eat a human being.

I don't have to be vegetarian to say that eating humans is so atrocious. It's logically inapropriate in any type of species : you don't see a type of animal eating each other, that make no sense and is contradictory with the reproduction of the species.

In my opinion, if there is not a danger for our health, eating meat or plants is just the same thing.

I respect all the atheists here, but I don't see any reason to not eat animals (dead animals of course ).

format_quote Originally Posted by marwen

In my opinion, there is no difference between animals and plants. Can anyone explain me what makes animals not proper to eat and not plants.
Whether we eat plants+animal, or we do not eat anything (and we die )

Interesting that you would say that, as the difference to me is kinda obvious. So my question would be: do you think animals are sentient? Can they feel emotions and pain? Do you think the same is true for plants?

Surely you agree that the physiology of the animals we eat is radically different from that of plants? I mean, plants do not have a central nervous system and even if they did they do not have a brain to process pain sensations. Surely that makes these two kinds of life radically different?