Is eating meat morally wrong
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
James, not everyone shares your moral views, not everyone has your exact morals, and not everyone has to have the exact same opinions as you. Just because they say that they don't think eating meat is wrong does not mean the person is evil or depraved.
Hapsburg:
It really is blindingly obvious that not everybody has the same morals. I'll say it again: if everybody had the same morals, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
Right. They are only evil and depraved in the matter of hurting animals for their pleasure. They may be wonderful people to other human beings. What I am looking into is their unjustified human bias.
It really is blindingly obvious that not everybody has the same morals. I'll say it again: if everybody had the same morals, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
Right. They are only evil and depraved in the matter of hurting animals for their pleasure. They may be wonderful people to other human beings. What I am looking into is their unjustified human bias.
And what is wrong with putting humans first? I mean wouldn't you kill five mountain lions who were about to kill five of your relatives? Assuming the answer is yes, why is you relatives lives more important than the mountain lions? Why is it fine to kill five of them to save five humans? Just becuase they are related to you and that having them around pleases you? Didn't those five mountain lions have a right to live? Wasn't what you did murder?
Species bias is what keeps any animal alive. The knowledge that killing one of another species for food is acceptabale. That harming one of your species is not. That harming of another species for anything other than self protection, defense of ohters and food is wrong as well. It is a complex moral system that humans and other animals share. That it is not as strict as your moral code doesn't make it immoral, just makes it not as strict.
Use any strawman, red herring, logical argument, or reasoning you want, but I am correct. Eating meat is moral becuase it is part of a moral code. Some things that happen in the production of some meat are unethical, but it does not change the base truth.
Species bias is what keeps any animal alive. The knowledge that killing one of another species for food is acceptabale. That harming one of your species is not. That harming of another species for anything other than self protection, defense of ohters and food is wrong as well. It is a complex moral system that humans and other animals share. That it is not as strict as your moral code doesn't make it immoral, just makes it not as strict.
Use any strawman, red herring, logical argument, or reasoning you want, but I am correct. Eating meat is moral becuase it is part of a moral code. Some things that happen in the production of some meat are unethical, but it does not change the base truth.
Last edited:
Questions for meat eaters:
1)
If they posted details on meat packets as to how the meat was farmed, slaughtered and transported might it influence your decision to buy?
Example: on packet of bacon, picture of rows of pigs squashed in crates with baby piglets seperated from sow as they can't feed, as no room for sow to lie down! etc etc etc. Covered in excrement and eating what looks like excrement!
I myself only buy organic eggs from free range hens as the image of hens cramped together in pens has had a lasting impression, if I visited a slaughter houses or any other intense farming farms I'm sure it'd have an equally big effect, but is it the case, with these images deliberately omittted, we safely indulge as we simply don't relate the product to the animal?
Well ?
Before you say NO
BEAWARE meat eaters (like me) have double standards and we don't differ so much to our vegetarians friends afterall.
The reason we don't eat cats and dogs in this country is because as noted above we can NOT eat cat meat without relating to our pets?
2)
In other countries where these animals aren't kept so much as pets, they do indeed eat them and keep them in equally appalling conditions. We don't like it....why?
3)Whats the difference with hitting a seal cub over the head with an axe for food, and slaughtering a pig? Appearances? what?
1)
If they posted details on meat packets as to how the meat was farmed, slaughtered and transported might it influence your decision to buy?
Example: on packet of bacon, picture of rows of pigs squashed in crates with baby piglets seperated from sow as they can't feed, as no room for sow to lie down! etc etc etc. Covered in excrement and eating what looks like excrement!
I myself only buy organic eggs from free range hens as the image of hens cramped together in pens has had a lasting impression, if I visited a slaughter houses or any other intense farming farms I'm sure it'd have an equally big effect, but is it the case, with these images deliberately omittted, we safely indulge as we simply don't relate the product to the animal?
Well ?
Before you say NO
BEAWARE meat eaters (like me) have double standards and we don't differ so much to our vegetarians friends afterall.
The reason we don't eat cats and dogs in this country is because as noted above we can NOT eat cat meat without relating to our pets?
2)
In other countries where these animals aren't kept so much as pets, they do indeed eat them and keep them in equally appalling conditions. We don't like it....why?
3)Whats the difference with hitting a seal cub over the head with an axe for food, and slaughtering a pig? Appearances? what?
Last edited:
TW Scott:
It depends on the circumstances. Everything is a matter of balancing competing interests.
In a matter of life and death, where it the choice is between the death of a human being or the death of a non-human animal, it may well be justifiable to save the human being at the animal's expense.
But eating meat is not life and death. You won't die if you don't eat meat, TW Scott. And no other human needs to die if you stop eating meat, either. But animals will certainly die. And so, in this case, instead of weighing up the life of a human being against the life of an animal, what are we weighing? We're weighing TW Scott's momentary pleasure and joy in the death of an animal against the life of the animal. Excuse me if I say the animal's interests win in that contest.
You're confusing species bias with personal bias.
Many female spiders eat the males of their own species immediately after mating. Is that acceptable? On the other hand, many species live in a mutually beneficial symbiosis with other species (e.g. consider the small fish which clean the gills of sharks, which the sharks never eat).
You've changed your tune. Previously, you were arguing that animals do not have morals. Now you've turned 180 degrees to suggest that all animals have complex moral systems. So, which is it?
As Hapsburg keeps pointing out, every individual has his or her own moral code. Does that mean all actions are equally moral, as long as they are part of somebody's moral code? No, it does not. Some moral codes are demonstrably superior to others, because they are defensible. I don't know how many times I will have to say this to you before it starts to sink in.
P.S. Don't think I haven't noticed you avoiding the issues again, TW. Did you bother reading up on factory farming, at all, or did you just ignore the inconvenient information I so helpfully provided for you?
It depends on the circumstances. Everything is a matter of balancing competing interests.
In a matter of life and death, where it the choice is between the death of a human being or the death of a non-human animal, it may well be justifiable to save the human being at the animal's expense.
But eating meat is not life and death. You won't die if you don't eat meat, TW Scott. And no other human needs to die if you stop eating meat, either. But animals will certainly die. And so, in this case, instead of weighing up the life of a human being against the life of an animal, what are we weighing? We're weighing TW Scott's momentary pleasure and joy in the death of an animal against the life of the animal. Excuse me if I say the animal's interests win in that contest.
You're confusing species bias with personal bias.
Many female spiders eat the males of their own species immediately after mating. Is that acceptable? On the other hand, many species live in a mutually beneficial symbiosis with other species (e.g. consider the small fish which clean the gills of sharks, which the sharks never eat).
You've changed your tune. Previously, you were arguing that animals do not have morals. Now you've turned 180 degrees to suggest that all animals have complex moral systems. So, which is it?
As Hapsburg keeps pointing out, every individual has his or her own moral code. Does that mean all actions are equally moral, as long as they are part of somebody's moral code? No, it does not. Some moral codes are demonstrably superior to others, because they are defensible. I don't know how many times I will have to say this to you before it starts to sink in.
P.S. Don't think I haven't noticed you avoiding the issues again, TW. Did you bother reading up on factory farming, at all, or did you just ignore the inconvenient information I so helpfully provided for you?
James R said:TW Scott:
Well luckily your say and a $1.05 will get to a small order of fries. When it comes to my needs and yes meat is a need as I am allergic to soy and have problem digesting many nuts and legumes. Come before any animal not part of society. I'd think about being sorry I took pleasure in the taste of beef, but there is nothing wrong with that. I am also not dorry to say but even if I was not allergic it still would true
Same difference as all humans are related to you
Actually I said they rarely act immorally. Not that they did not have morals. Big difference.
And mine is superior to yours becuase it is mine. Simple. You believe the same and I don't stop you from your delusions. Don't stop me from embracing reality.
Non issue around here as factory farms do not exist in Michigan
beelzebozo
Registered Member
TW Scott said:
:-/
You eat meat because you like the taste - nothing more nothing less. If an animal has to die because you like the taste of spam then good for you. It just seems incredibly selfish to me.
TW Scott:
Oh, poor old TW. Why didn't you tell me before that you were allergic to vegetables? Maybe we can have a special exception just for you - although I must say I haven't heard of anybody who actually needs to subsist on an all-meat diet before now. It must be very difficult for you, not being able to enjoy non-animal products.
So, now that you've got that off your chest, will you agree that, for people who do not suffer your disability, there is no justification for eating meat?
Hmm... I guess not. So, all this whining about allergies is irrelevant to your argument, poor as it is. You think meat eating is permissible, regardless - just for the taste. Tell me, have you thought of any reasons yet?
Ok. let us accept that animals have morals. How is that relevant to your argument?
Me me me. Is there nothing deeper to your thoughts than this? Don't you ever look beyond your own wants? Do you ever do the right thing just because you know it's the right thing to do, even if you won't personally benefit? More than that, have you ever made a personal sacrifice of some kind in order to do the right thing? I do wonder.
What delusions? Do you think something I've said is delusional? Please elaborate. I wouldn't want to rely on any false facts conjured out of a faulty imagination. I do hope you can correct my delusions.
You already embrace your reality. You eat meat. You enjoy it. That's all there is to it, as far as you're concerned. Nothing else matters.
Really? That's good.
Tell me, do you think factory farms are acceptable in other parts of the United States?
Hapsburg
It is a pity you have no argument to back up your unsupported assertion.
Oh, poor old TW. Why didn't you tell me before that you were allergic to vegetables? Maybe we can have a special exception just for you - although I must say I haven't heard of anybody who actually needs to subsist on an all-meat diet before now. It must be very difficult for you, not being able to enjoy non-animal products.
So, now that you've got that off your chest, will you agree that, for people who do not suffer your disability, there is no justification for eating meat?
Hmm... I guess not. So, all this whining about allergies is irrelevant to your argument, poor as it is. You think meat eating is permissible, regardless - just for the taste. Tell me, have you thought of any reasons yet?
Ok. let us accept that animals have morals. How is that relevant to your argument?
Me me me. Is there nothing deeper to your thoughts than this? Don't you ever look beyond your own wants? Do you ever do the right thing just because you know it's the right thing to do, even if you won't personally benefit? More than that, have you ever made a personal sacrifice of some kind in order to do the right thing? I do wonder.
What delusions? Do you think something I've said is delusional? Please elaborate. I wouldn't want to rely on any false facts conjured out of a faulty imagination. I do hope you can correct my delusions.
You already embrace your reality. You eat meat. You enjoy it. That's all there is to it, as far as you're concerned. Nothing else matters.
Really? That's good.
Tell me, do you think factory farms are acceptable in other parts of the United States?
Hapsburg
It is a pity you have no argument to back up your unsupported assertion.
There is not such thing as an objective right or wrong. People decide on an individual basis what they consider "moral" or "immoral".
Ex.
Pretend a huge alien creature came to Earth and starting eating humans. Assume that this creature did not recognize humans as sophisitcated lifeforms so he chomps away on us with blissful indescreation. Then one day he realizes that humans actually are intelligent creatures. He weighs are intelletually capacity against or nutritional value and concludes that eating humans is okay because or high nutritional value outweighs or intellectual capcity.
Is this selfish? Yes.
Mean? Yes.
Inconsiderate? Yes.
Immoral or wrong?No. Why? Because the alien subjectively decided that eating humans was good.
Right and Wrong is in the eye of he beholder...completely and utterly subjective.
Ex.
Pretend a huge alien creature came to Earth and starting eating humans. Assume that this creature did not recognize humans as sophisitcated lifeforms so he chomps away on us with blissful indescreation. Then one day he realizes that humans actually are intelligent creatures. He weighs are intelletually capacity against or nutritional value and concludes that eating humans is okay because or high nutritional value outweighs or intellectual capcity.
Is this selfish? Yes.
Mean? Yes.
Inconsiderate? Yes.
Immoral or wrong?No. Why? Because the alien subjectively decided that eating humans was good.
Right and Wrong is in the eye of he beholder...completely and utterly subjective.
Mrhero54:
Take a human man. Let's call him Mr Smith. Mr Smith decides that raping 8 year old children is good. He weighs up the interests of the children in not being abused against his extreme pleasure in raping them and concludes that raping kids is okay because his pleasure outweighs the suffering of the children.
If this selfish? Yes.
mean? Yes
Inconsiderate? Perhaps.
Immoral or wrong? According to you, no. According to me, definitely.
Want to change your mind?
Take a human man. Let's call him Mr Smith. Mr Smith decides that raping 8 year old children is good. He weighs up the interests of the children in not being abused against his extreme pleasure in raping them and concludes that raping kids is okay because his pleasure outweighs the suffering of the children.
If this selfish? Yes.
mean? Yes
Inconsiderate? Perhaps.
Immoral or wrong? According to you, no. According to me, definitely.
Want to change your mind?
True 'nuff, JamesR. In the truest objective moral sense I can muster, it should be enough to point out that, stranded on an island with no food and only holding out for possible rescue, it would do one better to eat the reproductively-nonviable human female child companion than have sex with it.
Is there any better time to make the "Eat her, don't eat her" joke?
Is there any one clear objective argument against the consuming of meat that establishes its moral weight in converting the entire human species to a vegetarian diet?
Is there a moral argument strong enough that we should determine to evolve the species in such a fundamental way?
Is there any better time to make the "Eat her, don't eat her" joke?
Is there any one clear objective argument against the consuming of meat that establishes its moral weight in converting the entire human species to a vegetarian diet?
Is there a moral argument strong enough that we should determine to evolve the species in such a fundamental way?
JamesR said:
Hopefully, I will have time today and tomorrow to visit those points, but anytime "cruelty" or "morality" are involved in discussions of meat and vegetables, as such, I refer to Aldous Huxley. Were our eyes considerably keener than they are, we would openly perceive the suffocating gasps, the dying throes of the plants. Huxley speculates that to have witnessed even the laboratory representations he saw at the Bose Institute in 1925, one proclaiming the moral basis of vegetarianism would have reason to reconsider.
But as to the evolution of the species, I agree that the species will evolve regardless of what we do. However, what is the basis for "choosing" an evolutionary course?
Would we be happy on a flavored microbial diet? Vast farms for breeding microorganisms either for direct consumption or for the culinary treats of their waste? After all, given Huxley's outlook and humanity's tendency toward the extremeties of progress, why stop at the cruelty shown animals?
To take an indirect comparison: Would it be better, then, to suppress the damage and cruelty inherent in the human-societal sexual experience and limit reproduction to the laboratory since we are capable of fertilizing under glass? Why not engineer Bokanovsky sets a la Huxley? We might consider that sex has a number of other "uses" deemed legitimate among its participants. Face it, for most humans, sex feels good, just like, to borrow a phrase, "pork chops are good".
So what do we do, then, when faced with the assertion that eating, and not sex, is the most sensual experience known to human existence? There is a satisfaction greater than the post-orgasmic that comes from a peppercorn New York steak at El Gaucho, or the pepper sauce Delmonico at the Met.
I should no more go celibate merely to abate the moral crises surrounding the importance of sex than I should give up meat in order to abate the moral thunder of the gathered vegetarian masses offended by my unwillingness to imitate them. That I don't eat eggs has nothing to do with my morals; I simply don't like eggs. But although I am aware of the problems in harvesting other animal products (e.g dairy) for consumption, I will give up breathing on a moral basis long before I give up alfredo.
Are the personal, intangible rewards of interpersonal behaviors (e.g. sex/love) any more or less real than the internal and intangible rewards of what we eat? There is a post-dining phrase many stoners are familiar with: Fat, dumb, and happy. And yes, there is tremendous value in that degree of satisfaction that anyone can get from the food they eat. The culinary arts could take a flying leap for all I care except that there are certain empirical benefits. Take away the satisfaction one gets even from a steaming bowl of Hamburger Helper and you might as well take away music, while you're at it. People will react, whether they choose to or not.
So not only would we be choosing to restructure our evolutionary diet on the basis of morals, we would also reshape our evolutionary psychology for no better reason. In a world so without reward, so devoid of love, can humanity really thrive?
Perhaps. If we choose to evolve in such a dispassionate, conscious manner.
(The "starving children in India" argument never really worked for me, so I can't see how, "I know the food sucks, Timmy, but eat up: it's for the benefit of the species," will work any better.)
Someone ought to take the anti-meat argument to groups like MorningStar; after all, what's the point of making food that imitates meat if they're only imitating immorality? Seriously: "You don't need meat; try this textured vegetable protein that's made to look and smell and, allegedly, taste just like chicken!" Of course, what would we call the fake "buffalo wings"?
To restate with certain accent: "Is there any one clear objective argument against the consuming of meat sufficient to justify converting the entire human species to a vegetarian diet? Is there a moral argument sufficient to justify that we should determine to evolve the species in such a fundamental way?"
Yes, we make moral determinations affecting evolution, but what a species eats is very, very fundamental.
tiassa:
We can agree that the enjoyment you get from eating meat can be compared to the enjoyment you get from sex. But sex doesn't involve hurting another living being for your pleasure. In fact, our laws frown on sex which involves harm to one of the parties without consent.
Eating meat, on the other hand, involves harm to another living being, without consent. Moreover, it is a demonstrably conscious and feeling being. The extension of this argument to plants is just a distraction. There is no evidence that plants have any kind of consciousness, or any subjective experience of suffering. But, even if there was, that would only provide an argument for not eating at all. It would not provide an argument in favour of eating meat.
We can agree that the enjoyment you get from eating meat can be compared to the enjoyment you get from sex. But sex doesn't involve hurting another living being for your pleasure. In fact, our laws frown on sex which involves harm to one of the parties without consent.
Eating meat, on the other hand, involves harm to another living being, without consent. Moreover, it is a demonstrably conscious and feeling being. The extension of this argument to plants is just a distraction. There is no evidence that plants have any kind of consciousness, or any subjective experience of suffering. But, even if there was, that would only provide an argument for not eating at all. It would not provide an argument in favour of eating meat.
James R said:
Actually I digest most vegetable just fine, it is the ones high in protein like beans, soybeans, legumes, and nuts that I have a problem with. Of course that problem is just discomfort and extreme loose bowel movements.
But as for me I am not a hypocrit if it alright for an animal to eat meat then it is certainly alright for a human. Just becuase you think it is not makes no never mind to anyone worth the powder to blow their nose.
Another flip-flop from you. Previously, you argued that humans were "above" animals, but now you seem to be saying that humans are on the same level. At least, that's how I assume you justify that what is right for animals is also right for humans. Right?