How should an Atheist world treat animals?

studiorat

Sorry, I didn't literally mean kill it themselves. Oh man! What a blood-bath that would be. I kind of meant rear it yourself. Not even that just take some responsibility for insuring the best quality of the product at all levels in it's production...

pH

studiorat wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't literally mean kill it themselves. Oh man! What a blood-bath that would be. I kind of meant rear it yourself. Not even that just take some responsibility for insuring the best quality of the product at all levels in it's production...

Can you explain why that argument applies to eating animal flesh, but not the millions of other things that we get other people to do for us? I take it you wouldn't be in favour of "Only people who grow their own potatoes can eat them" or "Only people who can fab their own microprocessors can use a computer". If the animal's treatment is humane either way how does it matter who actually does the rearing and the killing?

I agree that the current agri-business model can leads to businesses valuing profits much higher than animal welfare, and buying steak in cellophane in Tesco insulates the consumer from that and allows us not to dwell on it. However that to me is an argument for strong legislation regarding the treatment of animals and rigorous enforcement of those laws, not some clever sounding sound-bite about "only those who rear/kill their own animals should be allowed eat them" which has no basis in logic or common sense.

mewso

I'm not sure how Atheism comes into this at all. Have rules been written saying Atheists must be Vegetarians, Meat eaters? I think to answer the actual question an Atheist world would probably treat animals exactly as they are treated now with just as much debate on their treatment from the same people on both sides.

getz

the koran says all dogs{except herding dogs}are devils and are to be killed--a muslim is not allowed to pray with one in his house --as the angles will not answer his prayer--allso he cannot pray with a jewish person present

Dades

musician wrote: »

I'm not sure how Atheism comes into this at all.

Atheists would often see humans as simply more intelligent animals, rather than envisage animals placed on earth to serve/feed them. But yes, I would imagine there not a not a huge distinction between religious/non-religious on this, but the question has been asked...

getz wrote: »

the koran says all dogs{except herding dogs}are devils and are to be killed--a muslim is not allowed to pray with one in his house --as the angles will not answer his prayer--allso he cannot pray with a jewish person present

Interesting in a kinda irrelevant way. :pac:

Goduznt Xzst

musician wrote: »

I'm not sure how Atheism comes into this at all. Have rules been written saying Atheists must be Vegetarians, Meat eaters? I think to answer the actual question an Atheist world would probably treat animals exactly as they are treated now with just as much debate on their treatment from the same people on both sides.

but in a religious world it is held that Humans are greater than animals because God created us separate. In an Atheist world this distinction no longer exists, we are no longer really human, rather we are the 5th ape and at the evolutionary peak of our genus.

An atheist should be more open to the idea of rights amongst all creatures to survive and live out their life as nature intended as long as it does not harm or endanger humans.

But I will agree that in all likelihood an Atheist world would be no different, at least for a very long time, to the current world in regards to animals. Humans are far to egotistical to suffer so that a cow, who won't even recognise their suffering, can roam free.

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

That seems a lazy form of argument, the choice is practically between land being used for crops or land being used for livestock. It also doesn't directly address my point, we use land (to the loss to its original inhabitants) for many non essential things, golf courses, race tracks, stadiums etc. So I think it's unfair to dismiss the argument just by saying "if cows weren't on the land some other creatures would be", when clearly that's not the case.

I was referring specifically to rain forests that have been converted to grazing lands for beef cows (as a side note really).
Well if we didn't use the land for cattle rearing (or anything else for that matter) the rain forest denizens would almost certainly still be there.

BTW: I wasn't trying to dismiss anything.

studiorat

pH wrote: »

Can you explain why that argument applies to eating animal flesh, but not the millions of other things that we get other people to do for us? I take it you wouldn't be in favour of "Only people who grow their own potatoes can eat them" or "Only people who can fab their own microprocessors can use a computer". If the animal's treatment is humane either way how does it matter who actually does the rearing and the killing?

It does apply to other things. Would be nice to know that you weren't supporting child labour for instance.

And you are right if an animals treatment is humane it doesn't matter. Like I said take some responsibility.