Talk:Ethics of eating meat

Images of meat in the article

Although I am speaking as a vegetarian here, I think the images of raw meat, etc. in the article are at best distracting. I don't see what including pictures of dead animals has to contribute to an article about an ethical debate that is inclined to draw readers who are *against* eating meat and who consequently wouldn't like to see those images. If I come to read an article about an ethical issue, I don't expect to have to try to exclude the images from my view because I find them disgusting. This makes the article far less readable, while contributing absolutely nothing to its value or aesthetics. Before other people jump at me for simply pushing my own viewpoint about the images being unappealing, I would like to say that the images are detrimental to the article not because I personally dislike them, but because they're not neutral. If you include an image that could potentially offend or put off one party that participates in the argument, you're to some extent limiting the ability of the article to be edited to correct for mischaracterization of pro-veg views, which in my opinion constitutes bias. In short: putting images that are redundant into an article not dealing with a specific viewpoint (opposed to e.g. graphs of resource consumption of different agricultural techniques) that succeed in putting off one party to the argument are inherently biased and should be removed. - Space Dracula (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree pictures are wholly unnecessary in this article. For example the article Ethics contains no pictures and it is doing just fine. Since it is impossible to picture an abstract term like "ethics" much less "ethics of eating meat" the pictures do not add value at best and appeal to emotion at worst.--Hq3473 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no opposition to the suggestion i will be removing all pictures shortly.--Hq3473 (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So, the article on Jesus shouldn't have pictures, because I find religious depictions disgusting? Or what about woman that uses a picture of a naked woman? There exist people who find the image disgusting, and thus they would be put off from reading that article? More so, homosexuality has pictures of images of men, and/or women in sexual provocative poses with members of their own sex. I know a large number of conservative people, who would find that fundamentally disgusting. Even more disturbing and perhaps over even this article, The Holocaust has pictures of children abused in Auschwitz. Your argument is specious, and is driven by a desire to present only one view, or at least a cleaned up version that doesn't deal with the gorey details of meat. Some of us humans eat meat, and we kill them, and we cook them, and we take pictures of them. To not represent meat in this article by pictures is stupid... as is excluding pictures of what the animals look like alive. The target audience for this article is the fair, and neutral observer to the argument, not people who just want to come here and rant about how eating meat is wrong. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your examples are misleading, We can extrapolate or guess what Jesus looked like, we KNOW what women look like, we even know how homosexuality manifests itself. Thus those articles warrant pictures. This article on the other hand is about ABSTRACT concept of ethics. If this article was about simply Eating meat i would not object. However I do not believe that a concept of ETHICS can be illustrated. As i said before articles like Medical_ethics, Engineering ethics and Cyberethics do just fine without pictures of euthanasia machines, collapsed bridges, and evil hackers. Put another way there is an inherent value in including a naked woman picture in woman article, because it serves to illustrates and educate. There is no value in including good looking meat picture or grizzly slaughterhouse picture here because they fail to illustrate "ethics" and instead seek to persuade, which is NOT a goal of Wikipedia.--Hq3473 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're making two separate arguments and switching back and forth between them. One of them is that the pictures are biased, the other is that an abstract concept like ethics doesn't merit any pictures. First, pictures can't be biased, bias only happens within people's minds. The photo of the cow about to be slaughtered may excite emotion in people but this is due to what already lies inside of the viewer, not some inherent bias of the picture. In fact, the picture shows a method touted be the industry as an example of how humane slaughterhouses have become. As to representing abstract concepts with pictures, it's obvious that you can't, but the fact remains that these abstract concepts have practical roots and real world applications. The major argument against eating meat revolves around the treatment of the animals, a very non-abstract concept. Why shouldn't we illustrate something that has so much to do with the article? --Calibas (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I concede that picture of slaughter technique is appropriate in Treatment section, because it illustrates the issue that was raised. However, I still fail to see value in picture of different kinds of meat and in the picture of a cow in a field. What specifically do those images illustrate?--Hq3473 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"it illustrates the issue that was raised". Uh... the issue that's being raised in the entire article is "meat". Showing various pieces of meat is applicable to the argument. The other ethics that you refer to talk about generalized ethics... Cyberethics: privacy control, intrusion, etc. Multiple topics of ethics, not just one single topic. Same with the other two. This is a singular discussion of ethics about a singular topic: meat. And what does meat look like? Like THIS. The phrasing underneath the picture can totally be altered, "should this picture be considered revolting?" etc. And your objections still do not address that The Holocaust article has pictures of children children in a death camp. This isn't just about the ethics surrounding meat... this is an article specifically about the topic of "what meat is ethical to eat?" With answers between "none" to "all of it". Let me ask... do you think the Cyberethics article would be better with a picture of a computer on it? I think it would, and that's an even more abstract ethical category than "meat". --Puellanivis (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think people are missing something obvious here. The article is not meat. So picture of meat is kind of pointless. A picture of someone eating meat is a different story, and may in fact be entirely relevant. It may be very appropriate, in fact, to have a picture, say, of one person eating meat (wearing an NRA hat and holding a rifle too maybe) and another person looking angry and disgusted and pointing a finger (holding a sign maybe). Thought bubbles may add to the informative nature of the picture also. --C S (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest : [1], it is as relevant as anything.--Hq3473 (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't even tell definitively if it's meat the individual is eating. --Puellanivis (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

First... Meat is a food. The meat pictured in the article is meat intended for consumption. The same ethic objections to meat as a food apply to meat as a fertilizer etc. And odd question of why it focuses on "eating meat" rather than simply the wider topic of the ethics of meat. Vegans believe that meat should always be left as animals. I don't think they even approve of eating an animal after it has died of natural causes(?) or ... anything but natural rotting, and if they approve of embalming for humans, why not embalm all animals, and preserve their meat on their body, than let nature run its course as it would with humans if we didn't stop it. Even vegancats.com notes that male cats (an obligate carnivore) cannot live suitably without meat... but rather that it should be striven to reduce their meat consumption as much as possible. So, obviously, they understand the ethics of denying one animal a food which it absolutely requires, and letting that animal live. This article deals much more with "meat" as a concept, and the ethics behind it, rather than simply "should we eat meat?" Ethically, my stance is, "the meat served to me is already dead. The animal died so that I could have meat, it would be immoral for me not to respect the sacrifice of that animal and not eat all of that meat. Letting an animal's meat go to waste simply because it's meat is wrong. Whether I choose to eat their meat or not, the animal still died." Since this article explores the manufacture of meat, and the consequences of having meat as a food, it should deal with meat period... not just eating it. --Puellanivis (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try reading the article you're discussing. Your summary of why vegans abstain from meat is bizarre and not representative of any vegan that I've ever met. Please familiarize yourself with the subject at least a tiny bit before engaging in a debate on the talk page. (Full disclosure - I'm vegan). Djk3 (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you produce any reliable authoritative sources (vegancats.com hardly qualifies) that show that there is any kind of ethical concern with animals eating meat? If not then I will continue to assume that only ethical problem is with HUMANS EATING meat, not with meat in general. Honestly, if humans were to stop eating meat, would there remain any other ethical problem with eating meat?--Hq3473 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The ethics of meat include humans FEEDING meet to other animals. Not with animals eating meat in nature. But pets, and other animals that rely upon humans for their food. If humans provide them meat, then one is contributing to the slaughter of animals simply to feed another animal in an unnatural way. If we had a million head of cattle killed and tilled into the ground for fertilizer then yeah... you don't think people would object to that on an ethical ground? --Puellanivis (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Authoritative sources please, or this your Original research?.--Hq3473 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OR is allowed in Talk Pages... it's mainspace articles that it's now allowed in --Puellanivis (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, yet if we were to make decisions on what to include in article space it would be improper to do so based on contentions unsupported by authoritative sources. Right now the article states that "human consumption of meat" is an ethical concern, the article states nothing about "animals eating meat" being an ethical concern, thus we should make decisions based on that definition of the problem, unless you can present sources indicating otherwise.--Hq3473 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the production of meat products for our animals any different than producing it for human consumption? The chickens in my cats' food likely suffered the exact same way that it would have if it had ended up on my plate, rather than in their dry pellets. I'll agree with you that the article talks about humans and only humans eating meat... however the more generalized issue is human mass-production of meat. Few can argue that hunting in a sporting manner for food is reasonably ethical... Now, mass hunting, or hunting simply for sport... that has a problem. But we don't do that for commercial meat anymore... we don't often even treat our animals with respect anymore. Meat is meat, once the animal is dead, it is food... it's how you treat the animal before killing it, and while killing it that makes this such an ethically divided issue. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources please.--Hq3473 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Puellanivis - I don't disagree with what you are saying, however, your view is a bit narrower than this article should be. There are many who do not eat meat for ethical reasons that have nothing to do with animal treatment. The reasons may be religious, a respect for life, or simply because they think animals are dirty and don't want to eat them. It is an interesting question if one chooses not to eat meat for ethical reasons, then chooses to feed similarly sourced meat to a companion animal, however, this is relatively not related to the topic, since it is the ethics of humans eating meat, not the ethics of humans feeding meat to other animals. I agree that they can be related, but are not necessarily related. Bob98133 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

*nods* yeah, I concede your points. In some ways though "a respect for life" falls under "treatment of animals"... the idea that killing an animal is fundamentally mistreatment of that animal. As for religious reasons, and that (some/all) animals are "dirty" is a good point. As well. I agree the scope of my statements are more narrow, and broader than this article is intended to handle. However, I must stand firm that presenting a depiction of meat intended for human consumption, as the picture actually is, is an accurate and appropriate picture for the article. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with an image of meat or not. It's not going to make or break the article, and it's so hard to find a picture of ethics! Bob98133 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tofu-beijingchina.jpg or Image:Comendo.jpg would seem appropriate - as an alternative and for the lead. Pictures make the page more interesting. Wikipedia:IMAGE#Image_choice_and_placement suggests that either, or both, would be appropriate as an example for humans. WLU (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure... using the tofu one, that's not actually meat... and thus irrelevant to the ethics discussed. Comendo actually isn't a bad one, considering that it shows a hamburger, well known to contain meat, half-eaten and in the actual process of eating it. However, it's still a little blurry, and the meat is only a very small part of the image. I would imagine, showing someone cutting up a steak to be eaten would be a pretty good choice though. From your link to WP:IMAGE, "Intangible concepts can be illustrated, for example a cat with its claws out portrays aggression, while a roadside beggar juxtaposed with a Mercedes Benz shows inequality." I would say that depicting meat intended for consumption by humans is as appropriate an image as the indicated examples. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tofu would be OK were there a section on "alternatives to meat eating" but you're right, that's not really ethics. Could go in the "animals killed by harvesting section" with a caption of "Tofu, a vegetarian alternative to meat, requires harvesting" or somesuch. I really don't think it's that big a deal. The current pics seem fine to me, the only advantage to the Comendo one is that someone's actually eating. It seems a bit literal-minded to suggest that it's superior to the big ol' slab of meat. WLU (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, totally *applause* I like that idea. :) You're absolutely right, that tofu could be used in the article to demonstrate something that could be an alternative. :) --Puellanivis (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tofu ftw! I totally agree. Let's do it! Quintus314 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Puellanivis's earlier comment "The animal died so that I could have meat": I only note in passing that this statement has exactly the same form as the one that Noam Chomsky spotted on a statue: "Here lies an Indian woman, a Wampanoag, whose family and tribe gave of themselves and their land that this great nation might be born and grow." (Quoted in Manufacturing Consent.) The respective agents of both the animal's death and the Wampanoag woman's death go unmentioned, as does the extent to which each of them gave their consent. (Full disclosure: I'm a meat-eater who knows of no ethical justification for my meat-eating.) Lexo (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this article, since it's an Encyclopedia article, is an informative one, not a persuasive one (and that's coming from a vegetarian). Secondly, I TOTALLY agree with you. Like, 100%. We don't need meat in an article about arguements for meat. Quintus314 (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Image Texts

I've changed the text that read as questions, such as "Meat: Right or Wrong?" and "Does this cow have consicnous?" Because it doesn't support neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke (talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 September, 2009

Neutrality

I have to say that this page is not written from a standpoint of neutrality. I know that most of the editors on here are likely vegan/vegetarian, so it is understandable that the neutrality has shifted, but I would urge additional editors to step up and make some changes to bring more balance to this article. From the get-go this article sets about proving that it is unethical to eat meat, and there needs to be ammendments, not necessarily pro-carnivore views.205.200.1.246 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the ethics of following behavior of the majority of people. I believe that there is the assumption that some people have an ethical objection to eating meat. It is currently accepted ethics that meat be eaten, so I don't see a POV conflict here. Are you thinking that content should be added that eating meat is an ethical activity? If so, cite some sources. If the article has shifted, please cite how and how to correct that shift. Without that information, I disagree that there is an neutrality issue with this article. Bob98133 (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster here and disagree with Bob98133. This article has serious, repeated NPOV issues, with various sections biased towards each side of the debate. It should be rewritten by someone who frankly doesn't give a damn either way about consumption of meat. I'm making two changed based on factual accuracy. Firstly, in the opening line, I'm rewording "most societies" to "many societies" (Look up the definition of most). Secondly, the sentence "Anthropocentrism, or human-centredness, is believed by some to be the central problematic concept in environmental philosophy, where it is used to draw attention to a systematic bias in traditional Western attitudes to the non-human world [12]" is decidedly not NPOV. Even if the wording were changed to "alleged systemic bias," the phrasing of the sentence advocates a certain viewpoint. I'm changing this to "The concept of anthropocentrism, or human-centeredness, alleges that unequal treatment of humans and animals constitutes a form of bias" and I'm removing the extraneous citation that supposedly justifies that sentence. I'm also correcting the spelling of "anthrocentrism" to "anthropocentrism" immediately below. I'm still really not comfortable with this article and think it needs further review. ThomYorke64 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If this article were truly neutral it would address the ethical aspects of eating all types of meat. There's certain types of meat that nearly every single person on this Planet is opposed to eating. In fact, I'm sure every society in the world has some sort of meat related taboo. That sort of stuff should be focused upon more and the reasons behind religions banning certain types of meat. While the vegetarian POV should be touched upon, that's only a small part of the whole ethics of eating meat and shouldn't be nearly the whole article. The stuff that really has to do with ethics is only touched upon. Questions like "why is it okay to eat a horse, but not a dog?" should be asked, though there might be some trouble with finding sources. --Calibas (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Calibas - I hadn't considered the types of ethical aspects that you bring up, but I think that they would be a good addition to the article. I'm not sure that the types of taboos that you mention are ethical choices rather than cultural ones, but if you can find refs please add the info. Bob98133 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how our ethics usually arise from our culture, I don't see how it would matter. I'll keep an eye out for sources, though I don't have as much time to edit Wikipedia as I used to. --Calibas (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a personal reason against eating meat to the "pain" section of the article. As a personal reason however I don't have any sources for it. If anyone can find a source, that would be great; if nobody can find a source, feel free to remove it. Banedon (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this article's neutrality is not so much the content, but the slanted phraseology. For example, in the section "The Ethics of Killing for Food," the phrase "some opponents of ethical vegetarianism..." is obviously slanted in such a way as to portray people who believe that eating meat is acceptable as "opponents," and more specifically opponents of something that is "ethical." It would be more neutral to say something like "some proponents of eating meat..." In fact, even the title of the section "The Ethics of Killing for Food" exhibits a subtle bias with its stark reference to "killing." The title could simply be "The Ethics of Eating Meat," although I'm afraid that a title like that might sanitize meat-eating too much and thus slant in the opposite direction. In any event, it's quite possible that the authors of this article, most of whom are probably ethical vegetarians or vegans, did not intend to slant the wording like this but simply wrote the article, intending to for it to be neutral, and their biases came out subconsciously. In any event, this article should be cleaned up to ensure neutral phrasing of ideas. Incidentally, I sympathize with the ethical arguments made by vegetarians and vegans regarding the treatment of animals, but I think that these points should be brought out in the article in a neutral, unbiased fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Shock Image"

Someone removed the image of the cow about to be slaughtered (again) and I just put it back. If you'd like to discuss it let's do so here. It's not a shock image, it's an image of a technique parts of this article actually describe as humane. An example of a real shock image would be the picture of what happens a few seconds later. --Calibas (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Davis' Argument

Such a weak point shouldn't be nearly so long as it is. Plus the enormous changes to food production and diet that would be required should be stressed first. Also, the 1.2 billion animals killed is utter fantasy as every acre of available farmland wouldn't be needed if people switched to a vegetarian diet. In fact, I think we'd be using less farmland as an enormous amount of the food grown on farms goes to feeding cattle.

And if that's not enough, this is an article on ethics and I don't see any of that in Davis' argument. --Calibas (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Calibas. This is a minor point and the existing text is highly POV. Bob98133 (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. If one of the most common arguments for ethical vegetarianism (that it reduces harm to/the death of animals) is a fallacy, then that's an important point. Steven Walling 21:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Steven - I would agree with you, but I think that Davis' research is what Wiki would consider OR. He makes all sorts of assumptions that he doesn't support. I think that this is worthy of a mention, but I think that it would be better to find a review of Davis' research for balance. Not just some org or newspaper reporting about it, but a reliable scientific review analyzing his conclusions, if Matheny and Laney refs aren't sufficient for this. Bob98133 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If it did that it would be an important point. Unfortunately his argument is a horrendous one and requires an enormous change in diet for just about everybody. If something very unlikely were to occur, then, 'maybe', eating meat would reduce harm to animals. I'm sorry, but that really really doesn't deserve the amount of focus this article gives it. It only deserves a brief mention in reference to the "least harm" stuff. The article does need a little more on why eating meat is ethical, but if we can't find legit sources, a piss-poor argument shouldn't be inflated to make up for it. That, and it's still an article on ethics and Davis' references to any ethical aspects are extremely brief. --Calibas (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a go at reducing this to something more appropriate. I don't see that including Tom Regan's arguments and whether or not they agree with Davis is necessary. I have stated Davis position and indicated that it is not universally accepted. Going to refs explains the points that I removed. I hope present version solves WP:UNDUE situation. Please discuss if you think more of this material should be included. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the decision to reduce the material on Davis and the debate around his work. If you read Davis's paper and the rebuttals this page linked to, you will see that the reasons cited above to cut the Davis material are not on target.

For example, it is not true that his argument depends on massive changes to the agricultural industry to make its point: the references to national statistics were simply a way of illustrating his point. Someone who agreed with his argument could act on that belief now by eating some grass feed beef and no other meat.

It is also the case that he is clearly making an explicitly ethical argument, just as advocates of not eating meat do. Davis's argument is based on the principle of least harm, which he borrow from moral philosopher Tom Regan, and which is a moral principle.

An entry mentioning Davis also does not violate Wikipedia's policy regarding original research (OR). The policy applies to what Wikipedians write ourselves. It is not a policy against citing previously published research.

I sense that some of the opposition to a longer section on Davis is because people disagree with his argument. As it happens I am a vegetarian and I share the view that his argument is mistaken. But it deserves a longer section, for two reasons.

One is influence. Davis has been cited in cover stories in Time, The New York TImes Magazine, a book by influential author Michael Pollan, and many, many discussions on the Internet. His argument has also generated rebuttals in academic journals by two critics who thought it was important enough to respond to. An argument that meets those conditions deserves more than passing mention.

The second reason it warrants inclusion is that the section was not about Davis, but the *debate* around Davis. One of the rebuttals linked to (Lamey) basically turned his argument around, and said that if Davis's moral assumptions are correct, he has actually strengthened the argument for vegetarianism. So even if one disagrees with Davis's original conclusions, there is still a case to be made for the longer section, as Davis has set of a larger debate that is independent of his recommendations re diet.

For all of these reasons, I am going to restore the longer section on the debate around Davis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porphyry Jones (talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits to the earlier version which was inserted after discussion. You did not have consensus to make this change based on the talk above. In fact, it appears that you are the only editor so far in this discussion who favors the pointlessly long version of this obviously OR. Waiting 2 weeks after a discussion to revert agreed-upon material doesn't make much sense.

As to your points, who mentions Davis or how many google hits he has are of no relevance. If his work is flawed it is worthwhile to show the debate, but it is WP:UNDUE to devote so much space to such a flawed argument. Please try to get consensus for your changes prior to reverting. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bob. As I read the previous discussion, you and another editor thought it was too long and there was a third, Steven W., who thought it should be longer. I am with Steven so it is two votes on either side, so I did not think I was doing anything untoward. Based on the above, there seems just as much support for my position as for yours.

Regarding your comments,if by OR you are referring to Wikipedia's policy against original research, the longer version does not violate this policy, as you will see if you review the policy in question. Again, it is a policy against you or I introducing material not already published elsewhere.

You also mention the undue emphasis policy. This is why I mentioned all the places Davis has been cited. There is a live debate going on about his work, and this page could be helpful to people who have been following it. But right now the entry is so short, it is hard to even get a sense of who has said what on either side.

You mention that Davis's argument is flawed, and I agree. But note that the criteria for an argument being mentioned on Wikipedia is not based on its truth. Also, the entry as I had it did not endorse Davis argument. It said he had put his argument forward and mentioned the rebuttals to it, pointing interested readers to further sources. That would be of service to people interested in this topic. Right now this section is too brief to be of much use to anyone. Even if you felt the previous version was too long, right now it is so short to be informative.Porphyry Jones (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. If you read the Lamey paper linked to you might get a sense of why someone sympathetic to vegetarianism would want this material to be included. Davis has misunderstood the ramifications of his own argument. If people come here and read the long version, or at least one longer than what is there now, they will be more likely to see that than if this material is missing.Porphyry Jones (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The previous version of this article has about 25% of the article devoted to Davis. That is what I mean by WP:UNDUE. if you can successfully argue that 25% of an article about ethics of eating meat should be about a poorly researched and widely discredited theory, please do so. Otherwise, this should be shorted (or the rest of the article considerably lengthened) to reduce the impact of this. Please indent your posts using :'s at the beginning. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how editor Wallings comment says anything about this section being longer. It seems to me that he is saying that it should be included, not the focus of the article. Bob98133 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If the reason for having such a short section is that Davis's argument is "poorly researched and widely discredited," then that is not a good rationale for deleted the longer section. The main reason is that we are not having a discussion about a section on Davis, but on the *debate* around Davis. I am not saying we should have a section saying Davis's argument is true. What we should have is a section saying he has made this argument, many people have taken it seriously, even if they disagree with his conclusions, and the debate is still going on.

The second problem with the decision to shorten the section is that the supposed flaws attributed to Davis were based on misunderstandings. None of the criticisms mentioned on this discussion page actually apply to Davis's theory, as will be clear if you read his paper or the papers responding to him. It is worrisome to see editing decisions being made by editors who, for whatever reason, have not read the sources in question.

Finally--and this is my main point--not all of the considerations cited by Davis are flawed. While I certainly agree that his conclusion that we should eat free-range beef is mistaken, he has drawn attention to important issues ethical vegetarians care about. They include the issue of animals killed in crop harvesting and the fact that the average cow provides 200 times more meat than the average chicken, 1200 lbs vs 6 lbs, which some vegetarian critics of Davis take to suggest that eating chicken is even worse than beef, as it kills more animals overall.

These kind of points are made in the Lamey paper responding to Davis. As it happens I have been tracking the number of downloads it gets and after the longer section was added it got over 100 downloads. When the Davis section was cut the downloads trickled to almost nothing. This suggests to me that the shorter section does a disservice to people interested in the ethics of eating meat.

Regarding the length, I think it is an exaggeration to say the old section was 25% of the whole page. Even if it was, the right response might well be to lengthen the rest rather than cut this section. Alternatively, I could trim the longer Davis section slightly. But as it stands it is too brief to be informative.Porphyry Jones (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor Wallings took issue with the claim that Davis's argument was a minor point and instead said it was important. If the topic is important it deserves more space.Porphyry Jones (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a word count. It was 25% of the article. Bob98133 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

1) I did a word count also. The longer Davis material runs to about 500 words. When it is added the entire entry runs to 2,330 words. That makes 21.45%. If overall ratio is a concern I suggest expanding other parts of the entry rather than treating this one in such a cursory way.

2) As I mentioned before, none of the criticisms mentioned on this discussion page really apply to Davis's theory, and the overall debate touches on issues of interest to large numbers of people, not just Davis or people who agree with his conclusions.

3) The Wikipedia guidelines state "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I have already mentioned many reliable sources that have discussed Davis and see there are a bunch more on Google Scholar and elsewhere.

For all of these reasons, I propose to make the section longer again. If you still have some concerns I can try to trim it a bit or make clearer that the issues in play have been taken to support, rather than undermine, the case for a meatless diet.Porphyry Jones (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Davis' argument is specious and the many references to it generally refute it. If you feel that this is the most important point in the entire article, then indeed it should be almost 25% of the article. If you wish to expand it, go for it. I don't care whether the section supports or condemns a vegetarian diet, I'd just like it to reflect reality rather than absurdity. You have been discarding half of the editors opinions about the importance of this material, so I don't believe there is much point participating in the discussion. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Porphyry Jones, if you've read and understand Davis' work feel free to rewrite the section. And please concentrate on the ethical argument that Davis is making, the previous version is rather lacking there.

You also said that Davis' argument doesn't depend upon massive changes to the agricultural industry. If that's the case, then the sources we have here completely misrepresent Davis. Here's Time magazine: "Applying (and upending) Regan's least-harm theory, Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace poultry and pork production with beef, lamb and dairy products." That's an enormous change to the agricultural industry. You say you've read Davis' work, is Time magazine wrong here?

Then there's the very crux of Davis' argument, the number of animals actually killed. This number is nothing more than a guess. The whole thing isn't based upon any solid evidence. I think the only reason Davis received so much focus in this article (and in the media), isn't because he presents a good argument, it's because it's one of the only arguments on why eating meat is ethical. --Calibas (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I stumbled across this page last night and saw the Davis section. To me, I think the concept Davis introduced is one worthy of discussion if in fact there is evidence that a path other than vegetarianism/veganism would cause less harm & death and would continue to do so when implemented on a large-scale. However, I find Davis' paper offers no such evidence and is in fact severely flawed. Thus, when seeing what struck me as two sentences that seemed to offer a very weak rebuttal, I attempted to edit this section.

Granted, I've never edited a wiki page before and much to my surprise, though I thought I was only updating the section, I ended up updating the whole page. Fortunately, there was a big, red undo button for me to push!

After reverting the page back to its original state, I found this 'talk' about the Davis section and thought I'd add my two cents. Personally, I think what is currently on the page looks like Davis has a great argument and the counterpoints are weak enough that they aren't worth getting into. I understand the concept of not wanting to ramble on about Davis' paper since it is so very flawed. At the same time, for better or worse, his paper is brought up again and again. Thus I think, like it or not, it is a subject that arises on 'meat ethics' and needs to have something stronger than three sentences.

I didn't create this page, so I know my vote doesn't really count. But, if it did, I would vote to have more in that section. Though one could (I know I could) create a rather long list of issues with this paper - each of which alone would negate the conclusion, I think that Mathney's points are succinct enough that no one needs look any further. (One could include Lamey's points as done here(as well as other points made), but again, I think one needs to look no further than the math.)

That said, 'my'* version is below. If you'd like to use it (and then delete it from the talk section), feel free. Otherwise, if you'd simply like to delete it from the talk section, that's fine as well. *I have not personally verified the PhD candidate status of Mathney. This information came from here as did a portion of the text used Lolaabc (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argues that the least harm principle does not require giving up all meat. Davis states that a diet containing beef from 100% grass-fed ruminants such as cattle would kill fewer animals than a vegetarian diet when one takes into account animals killed by agriculture.

Davis' analysis has been deemed flawed by many, including Gaverick Matheny, a Ph.D. candidate in agricultural economics at the University of Maryland, College Park. Matheny argues that Davis miscalculates the number of animal deaths based on land area rather than per consumer and based on the assumption that "crops only and crops with ruminant-pasture—using the same total amount of land, would feed identical numbers of people ... In fact, crop and ruminant systems produce different amounts of food per hectare". When the calculations are corrected to reflect this, Davis' paper instead shows that both vegetarians and vegans kill fewer animals than a Davis-style omnivore. "As such to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals."

Mathney also points out that Davis incorrectly equates "the harm done to animals … to the number of animals killed." and that vegetarianism "involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of animals with lives worth living to exist."

George Will Quote

I removed the enormous quote from George Will for a few different reasons. It never addressed the ethics of eating meat itself, only the ethical treatment of animals. It was far too long without really getting to any point. It was attributed to George Will, who's mostly just summing up a book by Matthew Scully. Here's an article Scully wrote on the subject [2] if someone wants to add that to the article (paraphrasing usually works better than long quotes). --Calibas (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Vegans as a propaganda exercise

Is there not some evidence to suggest that the promotion of a vegan lifestyle as more moral (eh?) more worthy (come again?) automaticly place it in the realm of the nursery of the religious?
Ethics if you could find a substance / wavefield /colour/ something you could measure with an Ethic-o-gram the one thing you would say about an Ethical Effect was it tends to counter that which is innate; in short anything ethical is sexual selection, which last time I looked was the consensus with what a religion is for
81.109.247.189 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

None of what you just said is comprehensible. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just flabbergasted.

Ethics is the idea of what's moral or right and wrong. It's not scientific, it's (hopefully) informed opinion. Religion has less to do with ethics than with what you think your God/Goddess/Gods want you to do. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with veganism (I'm gnawing on some beef jerky now), but it's definitely an ethical discussion.

My apologies to everyone if I'm just encouraging a prankster/crazy person. The Cap'n (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

Consequences for animals of Vegetarianism/veganism

Vegetarian/Vegan ethics are coherent enough if compared with other mainstream moral issues, probably even more logic than other more controversial. A provocative example: it makes more sense not to inflict pain to a cow than to refrain from mating with a fully developed 13-15 year old girl, and act which in most ancient society would be considered normal. Having said that I think the advocates of Vegetarian/Vegan lyfestyle should interrogate themsels on the consequences of their choices. I am not aware of any large mammal that is not a lifestock and is not in danger of extinction in Europe. Bears have for long been on the verge of disappearing from the alpes, Game in general is kept alive in reserves etcc. What should be of the millions of cows which we shall not eat? Think to what happened to horses when they ceased to be a mean of transport; I did took the effort to look for a reference Population of Horses 1880-2000 and take a 50%+ reduction as a conservative figure and consider that although not for food or transport horses still are a versatile source of "animal force" (in all its forms); a similar case could not be immagined for cows. Honestly I do not see any grassland in Europe suitable for sustaing any population of wild cattle and it can easily be seen that what applies to Europe applies to any named developed area in the world. So I think this article should also cover the moral issue of the dependance of livestock animals on meat eaters, not to consider the consequence of the implementation of moral ethics on the production of an immense variety of byproducts of animal farming (leather just to name one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispinoecrispiano (talk • contribs) 07:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'nonexistence' argument could address many human activities: habitat destruction, domestic animal spay/neuter, the loss of herloom agricultural species (plant and animal) that are not seen as economically viable, etc... even human birth control and abortion. If it is discussed in an entry, it should probably be an entry of its own which is then crossreferenced where relevant. DaveinMPLS (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I eat veal meat and I love it

dito — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.79.23 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Humans are naturally plant-eaters (i.e. meat-eating is unnatural)

Humans are naturally plant-eaters according to the best evidence: our bodies by Michael Bluejay • June 2002 • Updated March 2012

A fair look at the evidence shows that humans are optimized for eating plant foods, according to the best evidence: our bodies.  We're most similar to other plant-eaters, and drastically different from carnivores and true omnivores.Those who insist that humans are omnivores, especially if their argument is basedon canine teeth, would do well to look at what the evidence actually shows. We'll cover that below.
I first wrote this article many years ago, but sincethen Milton Mills, M.D. wrote an excellent paper which covers the anatomy of eating, so let's skip right to my table-ized summary of his research:

Humans are biologically herbivores
	Carnivores	Omnivores	Herbivores	Humans
Facial muscles	Reduced to allow wide mouth gape	Reduced	Well-developed	Well-developed
Jaw type	Angle not expanded	Angle not expanded	Expanded angle	Expanded angle
Jaw joint location	On same plane as molar teeth	On same plane as molar teeth	Above the plane of the molars	Above the plane of the molars
Jaw motion	Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion	Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion	No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back	No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major jaw muscles	Temporalis	Temporalis	Masseter and ptergoids	Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth opening vs. head size	Large	Large	Small	Small
Teeth: Incisors	Short and pointed	Short and pointed	Broad, flattened and spade-shaped	Broad, flattened and spade-shaped
Teeth: Canines	Long, sharp, and curved	Long, sharp and curved	Dull and short or long (for defense) or none	Short and blunted
Teeth: Molars	Sharp, jagged and blade-shaped	Sharp blades and/or flattened	Flattened with cusps vs. complex surface	Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing	None; swallows food whole	Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing	Extensive chewing necessary	Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva	No digestive enzymes	No digestive enzymes	Carbohydrate digesting enzymes	Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Stomach type	Simple	Simple	Simple or multiple chambers	Simple
Stomach acidity with food in stomach	≤ pH 1	≤ pH 1	pH 4-5	pH 4-5
Length of small intestine	3-6 times body length	4-6 times body length	10-12+ times body length	10-11 times body length
Colon	Simple, short, and smooth	Simple, short, and smooth	Long, complex; may be sacculated	Long, sacculated
Liver	Can detoxify vitamin A	Can detoxify vitamin A	Cannot detoxify vitamin A	Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Kidney	Extremely concentrated urine	Extremely concentrated urine	Moderately concentrated urine	Moderately concentrated urine
Nails	Sharp claws	Sharp claws	Flattened nails or blunt hooves	Flattened nails

The details are in Mills' paper (PDF). The rest of this article covers mostly angles not in that paper, and since it's long, here's a condensed version:

The anatomical evidence tells us that we're optimized for eating almost exclusively plant foods. The only way to come to another conclusion is to ignore the bulk of the anatomical evidence, which is what my critics do. (They either use inferior evidence, such as disputed assumptions about the prehistoric diet, or they cherry-pick the anatomical evidence while ignoring the bulk of it.)

The animals most similar to us, the other primates, eat an almost exclusively vegan diet.

"Omnivore" doesn't mean 50% plants and 50% animals. Many consider chimpanzees to be omnivores but 95-99% of their diet is plants, and most of the rest isn't meat, it's termites. If humans are omnivores, then the anatomical evidence suggests that we're the same kind: the kind that eats almost exclusively plant foods.

Saying we're omnivores because we're capable of eating meat is simply silly. We're capable of eating cardboard, too. And by the "capable" argument, then cats are omnivores, since nearly every commercial cat food has plant ingredients. (Check the label.) Nobody would ever make the argument that cats are omnivores based on what they're capable of eating. But they sure make that argument for humans, enthusiastically.

Our so-called "canine teeth" are "canine" in name only. Other plant-eaters (like gorillas, horses, and hippos) have "canines", and chimps, who are almost exclusively vegan, have massive canines compared to ours. (See picture)

Our early ancestors from at least four million years ago were almost exclusively vegetarian. (see source)

We sleep about the same amount of time as other herbivores, and less than carnivores and true omnivores.

The most common cause of choking deaths is eating meat. (source) Real carnivores and omnivores don't have that problem.

The meat-eating reader already has half a dozen objections to this before s/he's even read the rest of the article, and I will address those objections specifically, but first let me address them generally: It's human nature to want to feel that what we're doing is right, proper, and logical. When we're confronted with something that suggests that our current practices are not the best ones, it's uncomfortable. We can either consider that our choices may not have been the best ones, which is extremely disturbing, or we can reject that premise without truly considering it, so that we don't have to feel bad about our actions. That's the more comfortable approach. And we do this by searching our minds for any arguments we can for why the challenge must be wrong, to justify our current behavior. This practice is so common psychologists have a name for it: cognitive dissonance.

Think about that for a moment: Our feeling that our current actions are correct isn't based on our arguments. Rather, our actions come first and then we come up with the arguments to try to support those actions. If we were truly logical, we'd consider the evidence first and then decide the best course of action. But often we have it in reverse, because it's too difficult to accept that we might have been wrong.

This is particularly true when it comes to vegetarianism. It's easy to identify because the anti-vegetarian arguments are usually so extreme, compared to other kinds of discourse. A person who would never normally suggest something so fantastic as the idea that plants can think and feel pain, will suddenly all but lunge for such an argument when they feel their meat-eating ways are being questioned, and they're looking for a way to justify it.  That's psychology for you.

I used to be in the same position as most readers probably are now.  Long ago my eating habits were challenged by a book I ran across in the library. I didn't want to consider it fairly, because I wanted to keep eating meat. I'd grown up eating it, and I liked it. So I came up with various weak defenses to justify my behavior. But deep down I knew I was kidding myself, and practicing a form of intellectual cowardice. Eventually I knew I had to consider the arguments honestly.

So I challenge you: stop trying to figure out ways that I "must" be wrong even before you've bothered to read the rest of this article. Instead, read it, and actually consider it rather than reflexively trying to come out with ways to dismiss it out of hand. You can certainly still disagree after you've considered all the evidence -- but not before.

Most meat-eating readers will find it necessary to try to defeat me, at least in their minds, so let's agree that that would mean providing more and better evidence for your position. One does not win the argument by making a single point, as most of the critics who email me seem to think. The evidence favoring a plant diet for humans is clear, convincing, and overwhelming. There is definitely some evidence for the other side, to be sure, but it's simply not nearly as strong. While you think this would be obvious, I mention it because my critics seem to believe that whoever makes the fewest and weakest points has presented the most convincing case. They somehow seem to believe that all the evidence I present somehow vanishes into thin air when they present their lone argument.

Evidence that humans are primarily plant-eaters

Evidence to the contrary

Many believe that lunging at at the minority of evidence in the red box makes their position compelling. But it doesn't. The only way to make that position compelling is to present more and better evidence, not to pretend that the green box doesn't exist.

[skipping some part of the source article]

---

"Vitamin B12. End of story."

I'm not joking when I tack on "End of story" to the sample counter-arguments. People actually make them that way, literally.

B12 isn't made by animals, it's made by bacteria. (source) It's found where things are unclean. (And meat is dirty.) This easily explains why historically it's been easy to get B12, because until recently we didn't live in a sanitized environment. Plants pulled from the ground and not washed scrupulously have B12 from the surrounding soil. (source) Vegans should take a B12 supplement, not because veganism is unnatural, but because the modern diet is too clean to contain reliable natural sources of dirty B12.

B12 is also found in lakes, before the water is sanitized. (source) Also, consider that chimpanzees' main non-plant food is termites, and termites are loaded with B12. (source)

Incidentally, our need for B12 is tiny -- 3 micrograms a day. Not milligrams, micrograms. The amount of B12 you need for your entire life is smaller than four grains of rice. (More on Vitamin B12 from John McDougall, M.D)

"You're not considering evolution."

Of course I'm not. Humans' hunting skills are relatively recent in our history but evolution takes place over a much longer period of time. In short, we haven't been hunting for long enough for our anatomy to favor a mixed plant-animal diet.

---

Source article —DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 01:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent essay. I love what you said about psychology. I know a lot about human psychology, and it's so true. So many meat eaters will say "Animals eat other animals", but most of the ones they eat don't, at least not naturally. In fact, there was a restaurant that sold "lion burgers" that had to close because too many people protested, and I actually saw a comment on a YouTube video about this saying that it is hypocritical for humans to eat omnivores (even though chickens and turkeys eat worms), and I saw a comment on an article about this saying that the owner of the restaurant should be fed to the lions.

I also read some guy say that some societies take it too far and eat cats and dogs. I don't see why that is going too far.

But this all pretty much proves that they're not interested in the truth. They were raised eating these animals, they like the way they taste, and they want to be able to continue enjoying the taste. Everything else is just an excuse.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is all obviously incorrect. Humans are, of course, omnivores. Moreover, our closest cousins, Neanderthals, were almost exclusively carnivorous, and according to the Max Planck Institute, based on its genome study, 4% of the DNA of modern humans (except for sub-Saharan Africans) was contributed by Neanderthals. When I read this supposed "evidence" that humans are not omnivores, I feel as if I'm on a Creationist website reading their supposed "evidence" that the earth is only 4000 years old. In any event, the issue of human omnivory has little, if anything, to do with the ethics of eating meat, so I am hard pressed to see why it's in the talk section for this particular article. Incidentally, there is a Wikipedia article on omnivores that addresses the issue of human omnivory, and this material would be better suited for that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Plan pain discussion

Constantly deleting my point about plant pain is not benefiting this article. This topic has not be officially addressed in academic literature so obviously theres no source I can provide but as a 4th year medical student I think the scientific reasoning in my argument against a so called 'plan pain' hypothesis is solid and should be in the article. Certainly if you are going to delete that paragraph then delete the entire plant pain section because its completely a ludicrous argument. Destruction of plant cells causes pain because cells are living? This is a joke of biological pseudoscience likely written by someone with minimal education in the Biological and Medical sciences.