Meat is Tasty Juicy Murder



  • Continuing the discussion from 📚 The book lovers thread:

    @ijij said:

    Flip side - he refuses to side with the Utilitarians on meat-eating.

    What do the Utilitarians think about eating meat? And who are they?



  • @Wikipedia said:

    Utility is defined in various ways, but is usually related to the well-being of sentient entities

    I think eating meat improves my well-being. Both physically and mentally.



  • Right. But I figure that either the author explicitly called something out, or @ijij is thinking of something in particular. I'm not familiar with any sort of utilitarian argument regarding eating meat. I definitely agree with you. For me, meat has positive utility out the wazoo.

    But this guy is supposedly an omnivore, so in favor of eating meat. I can't remember if it was The Omnivore's Dilemma or some other book with dilemma in the title, but I remember talking to people about it or reading about it and having a less than good opinion about it.



  • @boomzilla said:

    What do the Utilitarians think about eating meat? And who are they?

    In general, they seem to be against it. Small marginal utility for us... death for the tasty and nutritious animal.

    E.g. Peter Singer.



  • @ijij said:

    Small marginal utility for us.

    This is an example of the problem I have always had with philosophers. They beg so many questions and come up with different answers than what I think are right.

    OK...follow up question. What is the dilemma in the book?



  • @boomzilla said:

    But this guy is supposedly an omnivore, so in favor of eating meat. I can't remember if it was The Omnivore's Dilemma or some other book with dilemma in the title, but I remember talking to people about it or reading about it and having a less than good opinion about it.

    Caveat: At least with reader I had for the audiobook...

    Actually, I do wonder how I managed to listen to the whole thing - I flipped off the CD player dozens of times 😉 on every commute

    He comes close but does not cross the line of implying Illuminati whenever he mentions Monsanto, ADM, or Con-Agra, and of course he chooses his facts.

    To his credit though, he buys a steer. Tracks it down at the feed lot and says he tried to get into the packing house for the main event.

    Slaughters chickens at the small farm, and hunts, shoots, dresses, cooks and eats a wild boar.

    You'll still never confuse him with Milton Friedman, Bill Buckley, or Phil Robertson.... but I thought he avoided screedy preaching



  • @boomzilla said:

    OK...follow up question. What is the dilemma in the book?

    Excellent question...

    As omnivore's we are faced with the a question of "What to eat?"
    It is a dilemma because we have nearly infinite choice
    due to powerful technology, markets, and less cultural-rooting

    In many ways that's the least well developed part of the book because it's the least personal...



  • @ijij said:

    In many ways that's the least well developed part of the book because it's the least personal...

    Which makes it the obvious choice for a title! undefined

    Yeah, I think reading that book would just annoy me...what you said about it seems about what I remembered from other reviews / discussions.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Yeah, I think reading that book would just annoy me

    It must have been the nice August weather we had that made me more tolerant than usual... 😉

    What I really wanted to hear was the middle section where he went to the small farm that integrates everything with everything base on what he calls "grass-farming" - turns out the farmer is a fundamentalist Christian working out his faith by making the best, most honest, holistic farm he can - he ends up slaughtering the animals but treats them well and lets them live like they should in the meantime.

    The author treats that farmer and his faith with a fair amount of respect in spite of himself.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ijij said:

    In general, they seem to be against it. Small marginal utility for us... death for the tasty and nutritious animal.

    E.g. Peter Singer.

    So Peter Singer is TRWTF. For the record, I'm with Ben Franklin on this issue:

    I balanced some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs. Then thought I, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you." So I dined upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @ijij said:

    In general, they seem to be against it. Small marginal utility for us... death for the tasty and nutritious animal.

    In the case of livestock, it provides a great utility for them. Without us farming them, they would not exist. No livestock would survive for more than a generation or two if they were relinquished back in to the wild. So, the only reason they exist is that they are a foodstock for us.



  • @boomzilla said:

    OK...follow up question. What is the dilemma in the book?

    The dilemma is the author is the world's largest douchebag. And apparently doesn't trust that anybody in the US food chain can actually do their jobs correctly.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The dilemma is the author is the world's largest douchebag

    This is the impression I've consistently gotten.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    The dilemma is the author is the world's largest douchebag

    This is the impression I've consistently gotten.

    Research (clicking on his name in Wikipedia) indicates that he has turned this topic-area into a cottage industry for himself.

    I think the contest for "World's Largest" is extremely competitive.. but it looks like he has at least earned the right to enter that contest.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    In the case of livestock, it provides a great utility for them. Without us farming them, they would not exist. No livestock would survive for more than a generation or two if they were relinquished back in to the wild. So, the only reason they exist is that they are a foodstock for us.

    Also, we arrange for them to die relatively peacefully in a Temple Grandin designed processing plant rather than ripped to shreds by vicious predators.

    TIR Temple Grandin is a woman.


  • kills Dumbledore

    Having looked into it, I don't think it is possible to give a watertight ethical reasoning to support the idea that eating meat is moral. I still do, because it's tasty and nutritious, but I don't try to defend it.

    If lab grown meat becomes mainstream and not disgusting, I would have no problem eating that instead


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.