Is eating meat morally wrong

[thedevilsreject]

i eat meat all the time and i dont feal guilty at all for it, i get enjoyment out of it and they dont have the intelligence of humans thus not knowing whats going on so i dont see whats the big deal

 

[James R]

thedevilsreject:

Please have the courtesy to read the thread. Then tell me if you still don't see what the big deal is, or what's wrong with eating meat.

 

[Tortise]

God meant for us to eat animals, that is why he made them so yummy! Just kidding. I agree with James, except in the case of fish - these are simply too nutritious to eschew for lima beans or penut butter or other protein substitute. You'll never convience me that eating fish is wrong.

 

[phrogget]

I think it's less the act of eating meat that is morally wrong, and more the way it is bred and farmed for profit that is morally wrong. Add to that the fact that it takes more space, and resources to farm it, than it does to farm crops, that is wrong in a world where 850 million people are starving.

So I don't consider the act of eating an animal morally wrong, but certainly the entire industry that provides us with the meat is most definately immoral. In my opinion.

Same with fish. Eating fish isn't wrong, but the way the seas are fished is wrong.

 

[TW Scott]

850 million people in the world starve becuase A they won't eat meat, B Won't work, or C won't kick out the opressive leaders of their country.

Eating meat is not morally wrong. It is simple as that. it is a part of moral code. Like stealing something left unattended is wrong even though you may never harm anyone by doing it. It is like the decision to defend your family or to clear land for crops. Anybody who claims different is entitled to their opinion, but their opinion does not change fact.

 

[Facial]

Eating meat is not morally wrong. It is simple as that. It is like deciding that stealing something left unattended is wrong. It is like the decision to defend your family or to clear land for crops. Anybody who claims different is entitled to their opinion, but their opinion does not change fact.

The analogies do not make sense.

And I don't clearly see whether you support stealing something left unattended, or not. Can you rephrase?

 

[Tiassa]

Blatantly false. Why am I not surprised that you didn't provide any evidence whatsoever to support your conjecture? Oh wait, I forgot, you ended the assertion with 'Period' (exclaimed in a rather arrogant tone). So it MUST be true.

Ever been arrested and brought before the court for an alcohol offense? Not a problem if not; I just didn’t want to repeat what you already know if you’ve been through it. But in ADIS (Alcohol and Drug Information School), usually mandated by the court but well-populated by folks in advance of their trial at the advice of their lawyers, the instructors shoot down the myth of “I didn’t have anything to eat,” by pointing out that the body absorbs alcohol before, say, a steak, because the alcohol is closer to a simple carbohydrate. Yes, the ADIS line overlooks things like blood sugar at the outset of the drinking, but that’s not our concern here. What your body (or mine) considers “best” is not necessarily the same as what you or I consider best. The criteria may be different. The body has an easier time dealing with simple carbohydrates than complex; hence, it seizes on the simples first. That’s why eating won’t necessarily affect things in the context the ADIS crowd makes a point of.

That's why an alcoholic's body is turned on by a few shots of whiskey. That's why a heavy smoker is turned on by a cigarette. That's why someone who has been consuming meat all of their life enjoys animal flesh which is high in harmful saturated fat and cholesterol. That's why an obese individual binges on chocolate.

Now, just wait a minute. I’m a smoker. I’m an addict in that context. Maybe you have your own addictions; I don’t claim ultimate knowledge here. But to compare alcoholism or smoking to the sudden desire of a body to have a food (e.g. spinach) it has never wanted before is … well, I don’t get it. I would call it irresponsible, but something may be lost by the interpersonal translation: you may be answering an aspect I have not yet considered. A little help, perhaps, please? How do you compare alcoholism and nicotine addiction to spinach?

As to obesity, I would point to MAO inhibitors in fine chocolate, though that’s picking nits; I get your point about obesity. And I would part from you to reiterate a link I pointed out: our bodies are equipped to perceive meat as a food source.

Well, no, that's not what James R's argument is, unless you claim that your body can 'barely' tolerate every vegetable, fruit, egg and dairy product. The 'moral' act is to keep the suffering of sentient beings to a minimum, without compromising human health.

Your version is a softer line than JamesR’s. I technically agree with it, although I would imagine you and I would differ on the notions of minimum and compromising human health. Furthermore, what you consider not JamesR’s argument is exactly what that argument means in terms of my life, habits, and needs. It is exactly what that argument means to me. If my body wanted more vegetables, it would demand them, instead of recoil from them.

Because we all know that merely because something is pleasurable, or is a habit of yours, makes it morally justified.

The problem with such moralistic horsepucky is that it treats another person’s reality poorly for the sake of one’s fantasy.

It’s not about simple pleasure. Get over that fact. Stop whining and mourning that one. It’s ridiculous. White extra sourdough is one of the great accomplishments of humankind, belittled none by the reality that bleached (and enriched) flour is, in and of itself, of questionable moral justification. If my body did not find white bread adequate, it would not consider darker breads so repugnant.

Ever watch X-Files? “War of the Copaphages”? (Also called “Cockroaches”?) Depends on whether you side with Scully (“sissy scream”) or Mulder (condition beyond conscious assimilation).

Yes, I think pigmenting genetics would be a severe leap, but, “Tell a black man to stay out of the sun,” keeps running through my mind nonetheless.

 

[phrogget]

850 million people in the world starve becuase A they won't eat meat, B Won't work, or C won't kick out the opressive leaders of their country.

Yeah, lazy stupid hungry kids, not rising up against their leaders and armys. They don't deserve food and water for being such passive morons.

And scott, man, I really don't think anyone goes hungry because they refuse to eat meat, or refuse to work. To get to the point of starvation it's usually due to being part of a society where there is very limited amounts of food, or else, you wouldn't starve, you'd steal.

Eating meat is not morally wrong

Sorry, but the point I was getting at is that supporting the meat industry is wrong, not simply the act of killing an animal, for a meal. Simple as that. If you want to do it, fine, do it. But it's still wrong, because to be honest most things you do, we do. contribute to suffering somewhere in the world, or damage the environment in some way.
That's just the way of the world we live in.

 

[Quagmire]

so if a person raises their own livestock cares for them THEN slaughters them that is ok?

so long as a person isnt supporting the 'meat industry' by fueling the market with their demand.

planet earth produces enough food for every single human being to eat and eat well. The problem is greed, the people in the picture have nothing, and so can pay nothing, except they pay with their lives.

Side note: whenever i see pictures or news broadcasts featuring starving masses (usually in some war torn part of africa) firstly i think of all the fat, obese, 'all you can eat' obsessed humanatees gorging themselves on the fat of the land. At the same time i think of the powerbrokers, the politicians, the arms manufacturers, the subserviant scum that puts ak47s into the hands of children like the ones in the picture.

guns means money and power, how can the west go after saddam and not mugabe.

 

[phrogget]

so if a person raises their own livestock cares for them THEN slaughters them that is ok?

I think so. Or at least it's alot better.Personally, I'm not keen on slaughtering animals or eating them, but that's personal preferance, I don't like it, but I don't think that makes it immoral.
I'm pretty sure it's the way of nature.

Of course, there are people that will argue that we can survive without meat, so we should. But to be fair, those people could survive without alot of things they have that contribute to pollution and suffering. Different standards then though of course

 

[TW Scott]

You know what those kids have parents and in some areas the conflict is much older than the kids. So you look doubly hard at those parent. First they have not stood up for themselves and second they have concieved children in an era not fit for them.

 

[thedevilsreject]

why is it wrong to eat meat though, there is no problem with it

 

[TW Scott]

I think so. Or at least it's alot better.Personally, I'm not keen on slaughtering animals or eating them, but that's personal preferance, I don't like it, but I don't think that makes it immoral.
I'm pretty sure it's the way of nature.

Of course, there are people that will argue that we can survive without meat, so we should. But to be fair, those people could survive without alot of things they have that contribute to pollution and suffering. Different standards then though of course

True.

Let us take the whole you can live withot it so it must go bit. You can live with out fossil fuels which pollute the environment. You can live without refrigeration as the freon can cuase problems environmentally. You can live with eletricity as the overhead wires can fall and electrocute people. You can live without fire as it can burn you. You can live without your home as it is just a waste of good wilderness. and so on.

Alright so what are you left with using your bare hands to cultivate a few local plants which would make for a very poor vegan diet and malnutrition.

 

[James R]

tortise:

I agree with James, except in the case of fish - these are simply too nutritious to eschew for lima beans or penut butter or other protein substitute. You'll never convience me that eating fish is wrong.

Do you agree that eating cows is wrong, then? If you do, why is it wrong? And why doesn't the same argument apply for fish, in your view?


phrogget:

I think it's less the act of eating meat that is morally wrong, and more the way it is bred and farmed for profit that is morally wrong.

The bottom line is that humans eat meat because they like to eat meat. There's no other reason for it. It isn't necessary, and it involves killing innocent, sentient creatures for no justifiable reason. Hence, it is morally wrong.

And yes, it's made all the worse by the methods and cruelty with which it is done, but let's not lose sight of the bottom line.


TW Scott:

850 million people in the world starve becuase A they won't eat meat, B Won't work, or C won't kick out the opressive leaders of their country.

Wow. You're even more ignorant of reality than I thought.

Take somewhere like Sudan. There is not, there, an abundance of meat which people refuse to eat. People there are not unwilling to work, in general. As for kicking out oppressive leaders, I don't know where to start to begin to educate you on how hard that can be. Clearly you haven't got the faintest inkling. Have you ever talked to anybody from Zimbabwe, for example? You're completely out of touch with reality if you think the average person can simply rise up and overthrow a leader like Mugabe.

Eating meat is not morally wrong. It is simple as that.

Have you come up with any reasons for that view, yet, or are you still making unsupported assertions?

Like stealing something left unattended is wrong even though you may never harm anyone by doing it. It is like the decision to defend your family or to clear land for crops. Anybody who claims different is entitled to their opinion, but their opinion does not change fact.

You're rambling again. How is eating meat comparable to stealing something left unattended, or defending your family, etc.? You're making less and less sense, the longer you participate in this thread.

Let us take the whole you can live withot it so it must go bit. You can live with out fossil fuels which pollute the environment. You can live without refrigeration as the freon can cuase problems environmentally. You can live with eletricity as the overhead wires can fall and electrocute people. You can live without fire as it can burn you. You can live without your home as it is just a waste of good wilderness. and so on.

Note that this is not my argument. I argue that eating meat is wrong based on cruelty to animals, not solely on the fact that you can get by without eating meat. The other issues you mention may raise moral conundrums, too, and we can discuss those in another thread if you wish.


Quagmire:

so if a person raises their own livestock cares for them THEN slaughters them that is ok?

No. All the factors I mentioned earlier in this thread are relevant. Go read.


thedevilsreject

why is it wrong to eat meat though, there is no problem with it

Head out of the sand, devilsreject! Read the thread!

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

By the way, I notice you have once again ignored some detailed replies I made to you. How dishonest of you.

 

[James R]

tiassa:

Sorry for the long time taken to reply, but there's a lot to reply to!

What you're overlooking in your rush to fanatic judgment is the point of the story I tell. The body demands what it works with best. Period.

If that was true, there'd be no problems of obesity, or addition to alcohol or other drugs. People put all kinds of things into their bodies which are not good for them, and which their bodies do not "demand".

The moral act, therefore--or at least what I understand of your argument--is that I should force my body to endure foods it barely tolerates, including the response of trouncing my sociofunctional rhythms as well as the very nature of the thoughts that occur inside my brain, for unfounded moral discretion?

A few problems here:
1. I do not believe you body (as opposed to your mind) "barely tolerates" vegetables.
2. I do not believe your "sociofunctional rhythms" are more important than the life of an innocent animal.
3. The moral argument I am making here is not "unfounded". I have given a number of excellent justifications for it.

I am still waiting for somebody to explain to me how it is that I am delusional.

Let's start with your disavowal:

"Humans and other animals have the same value in terms of the human endeavor."

I don't know what you mean by that. I have never argued that humans and animals have the same value. Explain.

Yes, you do. When you compare eating meat to the rape and murder of humans, you're presuming moral parity.

No, I do not presume moral parity. If the question was: "Which is morally worse - killing and eating a human being, or killing and eating a cow?" then my answer might well be "Killing the human is worse." But here we are considering the question "What is morally worse - killing and eating a cow, or raping a human being?" I do not have to assign "moral parity" to animals and humans to answer that question. In fact, the question may be quite difficult to answer, since it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. However, I have limited myself to comparing only one particular aspect of killing and eating an animal to raping a human - i.e. the aspect of the act which has to do with a selfish desire on the part of a human being. Thus, I have not been trying to establish any kind of general moral parity between these acts, but only a specific similarity, which I think is valid.

Species bias is a foundational aspect of evolution.

Sorry, but you're wrong. First and foremost, organisms seek their own survival, not survival of their species. Often, the fiercest competition is not between different species, but among members of the same species, competing for the same resources.

Do we separate the microbe from the bovine in assigning moral values? How about plant?

Yes, we do separate them. I have already talked extensively about the importance of consciousness or sentience earlier in this thread.

Is it wise to attempt to eradicate marijuana, opium, and coca entirely? To make those species extinct? Does "Nature" have any rights? Only what she asserts.

A complete discussion of this would take us far off-topic. Consider: do humans have a moral obligation to preserve biodiversity? Many people think that is a worthy goal. It there, then, a "right" of nature associated with this? Perhaps. Anyway, I won't discuss this point in this thread, since it is tangential.

What about game hunting? At least the cow I ate last night was born for that specific purpose. Can't say that for the last venison I turned down.

Is it not more reprehensible to breed animals solely for our pleasure in killing them? Again, this is another topic for discussion, since we have yet to agree that killing animals for pleasure is wrong at all. If we can get past that first hurdle, then we may have more to discuss.

For what species would you permit the extinction of humanity? (Bees, Dolphins, bacillus plague, those nasty freaks from Independence Day?)

Or would a species bias get in the way on that count?

Now work back from there.

This is a separate question, and a distraction once again. Humanity will not become extinct if it stops eating meat. If you want to discuss the above as a new topic, go ahead by all means, in a separate thread.

Yes, it's a species bias. A dead cow has more value to me than a dead human. In purely economic terms, that is. Everything else is an appeal to my own emotions. Just as your argument is an appeal to a sense of aesthetic. Life is. Suffering is. Yes, I care. Like I said, I wish it was all free-range. I think veal is nuts. But I think hormone use in altering the herd is more of a concern in terms of the human health impact. Is the comsumption of meat akin to the rape and murder of humans? The comparison has never occurred to me. Yeah, f@cking a horse is akin to rape. Yes. Okay? But come on. For me, the difficult question is whether or not I actually could eat a dog. See, cattle are useful to me as food. Dogs are useful to, if not me, other human beings of certain cultural acquaintance, other roles. I don't doubt that a bull could be a fine friend, but the dog is more suited by evolution to the job. Myself, I'm a cat person. That my cat still chooses to live with me is something I appreciate. Cats are free creatures. Not by any moral principle of mine, but as dictated by my relationship with felinity over the years. They have little value to me in terms of food. In fact, they could bring the rats and mice and birds, if it really came down to that. Show me a bull that can bring me dinner and I will show you a hamburger, or fettuccine alfredo, with milkshakes. Maybe if I ever get around to owning a pot-bellied pig I'll understand a thing or two about why not to eat bacon. In the meantime, the best arguments against bacon have to do with my health, not the pig's. And that's how it goes.

The point I made before is confirmed here: you see animals primarily, if not solely, in terms of their value to you, based on economics or whatever. In doing so, you deny animals any intrinsic value in and of themselves. And yet, probably (correct me if I am wrong) you have a double standard here. Are other human beings only important in terms of their value to you? Or can they be important or special in themselves? In other words, do you care about the murder of innocent human beings in general, or only the ones you know, or whose murder might affect you in some way? And if the murder of a human actually gave you an economic or other benefit, what then? Would it be acceptable?

I think it's a matter of natural demand. Our bodies are equipped for meat. If, later in life, she chooses a restricted diet for moral reasons, that will be her business. In the meantime, what her brain decides it wants, she can have. That does not, however, go for my Guinness.

I think you underestimate the influence parents have on their children.

Imagine one of those awful scenarios. Plane crash in the mountains. Look, I have nothing to say to those unfortunate folks in the Andes, but apparently you do. Not necessarily as things are, but as things would be were we all moral. Imagine if they died because it had been so many generations since humanity ate meat, it was no longer a viable food source.

Melodramatic, yes, but underlying that a very fundamental change in human nature, and for pure morality's sake.

Don't you find it embarassing that you have to keep resorting to these way-out scenarios in an attempt to support your position? Give me any moral proscription and I can probably come up with an extreme situation in which the general moral principle would be better flipped on its head. But can't we talk about everyday life? The vast majority of the world's population will never be in a life-or-death struggle in which eating meat is the only thing which will save them. So, let's stop mucking around at the periphery and deal with the issues head-on, ok?

What you argue could result in the elimination of our evolutionary equipment for consuming animals. I don't know, milk? Eggs? Cheese, butter? How about myzithra, a goat cheese I happen to like? So maybe we won't. If it is the right thing for humanity, it will be through economic demand that the evolutionary standard will be altered. At least, that's where our society is headed. But the same economic forces that make so much of the egg and dairy industry immoral are the same ones that make the mathematics of raising animals to slaughter remotely relevant in the first place.

Why do you think slavery was abolished in the USA? Was it through "economic demand"? Is economics the only thing which drives moral standards? I don't think so.

Yes, I have a species bias. I do not like the notion of tampering with our genes for vanity's sake. Whenever we throw dice in the gene pool for stupid reasons, I get a shiver. Customize your baby's eye color? Hair texture? Muscle type, maybe? (For that Dad who wants a young superstar.) Look, I'm happy we're mapping our genes and all, but some of the potential for that is frightening. And in this longer-term tinkering with our evolutionary needs as a moral quest? No. Ridiculous.

I can think of worse reasons to make genetic alterations than to achieve a more moral society. Customising your baby's eye color or hair is frivolous. Again, though, this is getting off-topic. We can discuss the risks and possible benefits and the morality of genetic engineering in a separate thread.

But I wonder about you view of customising our meat animals. Obviously, all of these animals have been bred over centuries to be more meaty and tasty for humans. And forget genetics for a minute. Factory farms these days keep animals in conditions which improve the texture and taste of their meat solely according to human whim. Is that acceptable, according to you? Why is that kind of interference with animal genomes acceptable to you, while tinkering with the human genome is a no-no?

Morality is an inevitability of the human condition. The morality of having morals, aside from being a paradoxical question, can be determined by the objective foundation, the functional result, and the fundamental simplicity of the morals asserted.

The objective foundation of not eating meat is that animals suffer unnecessarily. The functional result of eating meat is the mass slaughter of innocent animals for no good reason. The fundamental simplicity of the moral argument against eating meat lies in the Principle of Equal Consideration, which I have discussed earlier in this thread. So, is having this moral moral?

Because I do not purport that bovines and humans have equal rights.

Neither do I. The difference is that you say bovines have no right to life when it conflicts with the whim of a human being, whereas I disagree.

I do not purport that the animals I eat have equal rights to humans. Moral conflict is not an issue in the question of eating meat.

Why? The only way you can say that there is no conflict of interests involved is to assert that non-human animals actually have no interests worthy of ethical consideration. Is that your view?

What could possibly be more important than the human endeavor? The self, perhaps? The pleasure of moral vindication, real or imagined?

The point is: it doesn't have to be "us or them". If humans stop eating meat, human endeavor will continue. It won't suffer; it may even benefit. Animals won't ever take over your world, tiassa.

I consider the potential reduction of the human food spectrum a difficult proposition. You are diverting evolution from its pre-ordained proper course.

This idea of pre-destiny is a purely religious one. Are you religious? Do you believe that humans ought not to invoke any of their own agency or willpower, but that everything is the will of some higher power?

Evolution has no "proper course" - unless you're religious. And even if you are, how do you know what God's will is?

Its proper course is wherever the necessities of life take it. Morals are not a proper wind, just a sack of hot air compared to the magnitude of necessity.

I think this idea of "necessity" in evolution is a sack of hot air.

What is the anchor of morality? God? Aesthetics? Reality? What are any of those things but perspectives?

This is another tangent. Let's discuss it elsewhere, if you like.

What moral priority asserts such parity of rights for non-human animals?

The Principle of Equal Consideration, for a start.

We could try screwing with the animals' brains so they don't feel pain and can't develop a memory sequence. That way they wouldn't know they were suffering. Would that be any better? I think it would be a bit ridiculous.

No, I don't think it would be any better. Why? Because it removes the animal's autonomy as an individual, sentient being. More importantly, it does so for no defensible ethical reason.

Hey! I have an another idea. Why don't we screw with the brains of all the meat eaters so that they no longer desire meat? Would that be acceptable?

 

[phrogget]

phrogget:



The bottom line is that humans eat meat because they like to eat meat. There's no other reason for it. It isn't necessary, and it involves killing innocent, sentient creatures for no justifiable reason. Hence, it is morally wrong.

And yes, it's made all the worse by the methods and cruelty with which it is done, but let's not lose sight of the bottom line.

Sorry man, but whether they eat it because they like it is irrelevant. It's a natural thing to eat. Humans are omnivores, they eat meat, and we always have done. There is nothing wrong in the act of killing an animal for your own survival, there is nothing wrong with eating that animal.

Also, I'd like to add that part of the reason they're so 'innocent', which, I will assume to mean 'defenceless' as you cannot possibly know the inner workings of daisys mind, and her plans for world domination and the end of the world to be able to claim their 'innocence', a big part of their 'defencelessness' is due to the way they are farmed, and bred in captivity. I would challenge anyone to go out with a knife and catch and skin a wild animal as big as a cow, or a wild pig. Man, there wouldn't be anything 'innocent' about those creatures.

Heh, we can argue this out until the cows come home, at the end of the day, it's a matter of opinion. You think eating meat is wrong, don't eat it.... erm, and nor will I because I don't like how it's farmed, and prefer quorn anyway.

 

[thedevilsreject]

why can other animals eat meat and we cant, just because we are intellectually superior to them?

 

[TW Scott]

Take somewhere like Sudan. There is not, there, an abundance of meat which people refuse to eat. People there are not unwilling to work, in general. As for kicking out oppressive leaders, I don't know where to start to begin to educate you on how hard that can be. Clearly you haven't got the faintest inkling. Have you ever talked to anybody from Zimbabwe, for example? You're completely out of touch with reality if you think the average person can simply rise up and overthrow a leader like Mugabe.

Hey, I never said it was easy, but damn it if you are starving to death already what do you have to lose? Hello, brainpower I know you are in there. I'm not the one out of touch with reality, I explained it rationally and you are simply point out where I am right. Nothing in life comes easy, not even death.

Now personally you strike me as the ostrich with his head in the sand. You constantly ignore the facts and the real world. You throw up lame arguments that have only the most peripheral connection to all credible rebuttals. You offer no proof of anything except your own bias.

Here is some facts:
A. We are the dominant predator on this planet.
B. Homo Sapiens existed long before agricutlure and quite well at that by eating meat.
C. We have only needed innovation past the fire becuase we developed agriculture.
D. Homo Sapiens hav canine for tearing of flesh and a digestive system well disposed to eating animal flesh
E. The craving of certain food types has nothing to do with the craving addict feel for their choice of drug
F. A vegan diet has to be carefully planned to ensure healthful existance, meanwhile a traditional diet involving meat has leeway.
G. There are 5 tastes Sweet, Sour, Bitter, Salty, and Umami (meaty)
H. Most Cattle in the US are raised humanely and Factory Farming is avoided by all but the black hearted.
I. Very few religion hold the eating of meat to be morally wrong. Oddly one of the biggest in that respect believes their final reward is to stop existing.
J. Beef is high in Iron, B vitamins, folic acid, and copper.
K. In a blight you can still get ahold of beef, but good luck on your crops.
L. One added bonus of the Cattle Industry is manure, Blood Meal ,and Bone Meal for your gardens.
M. Animals do not have any rights that we do not give them. Nor should they.
N. There are more people alergic to Soy than there are allergic to beef.
O. Morals are subjective. There are very few absolutes. those that are absolute are not the ones you'd automatically think of.
P. Having a different moral standard does not mean it is better. Hitler didn't drink would you say he had a superior moral code?
Q. You are just a poster on a Science Forum. You have no real credentials in this matter. We have no reason to convert to your line of thinking
R. Claiming that a person has morals or is amoral is an assumption. You have no proof.
S. Burden of Proof is on the accuser. You claim eating meat is immoral then you better be able to convince six billion people.
T. Nobody likes a liar.
U. The misdeeds of a small number do not negate the truth of the larger whole.
V. Trying to disprove a point by agreeing is not the best tactic.
W. Erasing successful arguments and not responding is not a good tactic
X. Reading skills above a highschool level are useful.
Y. Purposefully misinterpretting rebuttals only shows you lack class.
Z. In most animals eyes we have no rights.


Now i would respond to the rest of your ramblings, but I'm affraid if i posted them again people might develop aneurisms.

 

[James R]

phrogget:

Sorry man, but whether they eat it because they like it is irrelevant. It's a natural thing to eat. Humans are omnivores, they eat meat, and we always have done. There is nothing wrong in the act of killing an animal for your own survival, there is nothing wrong with eating that animal.

You haven't read the whole thread either, have you? Problems with the above:

1. "Natural" does not equate with "morally good". This is known as the "naturalistic fallacy". It may be natural to rape, but that doesn't make it right.
2. Tradition is not a moral argument. It may be traditional to oppress women, but most Western societies discourage that these days. The past isn't a golden age where all actions were moral.
3. Eating meat is not necessary for human survival. There are moral ethical options available.

Also, I'd like to add that part of the reason they're so 'innocent', which, I will assume to mean 'defenceless' as you cannot possibly know the inner workings of daisys mind, and her plans for world domination and the end of the world to be able to claim their 'innocence', a big part of their 'defencelessness' is due to the way they are farmed, and bred in captivity. I would challenge anyone to go out with a knife and catch and skin a wild animal as big as a cow, or a wild pig. Man, there wouldn't be anything 'innocent' about those creatures.

Ok. Let's leave the motivations of the animal out of it, and concentrate on its capacity for suffering. That in itself is enough to sustain the moral argument against meat eating.

Heh, we can argue this out until the cows come home, at the end of the day, it's a matter of opinion.

Some opinions are better than others, since they are defensible and based on sound logical and valid precepts.

You think eating meat is wrong, don't eat it.... erm, and nor will I because I don't like how it's farmed, and prefer quorn anyway