Is eating meat morally wrong
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
dragon:
That would be a fantastic argument, if it didn't rely on an 'appeal to nature', which happens to be a whopping logic fallacy.
Even if this was true, this does not necessarily invalidate his arguments. It's quite obvious after reading this thread that James speaks out of common sense, and relies on logical argumentation. All that his opponents rely on are waffling, logic fallacies, and questionable morality which they (conveniently) refuse to apply consistently.
You're not playing God when you place sentient beings in slavery, and take away their life at a whim?
He's not 'ignorant' of your ideas, he merely disagrees with them. But hey, that's the cop out used by anyone who knows that they don't have a leg to stand on. When your opponent disagrees with you, claim that he 'is ignorant of your position'. Don't dare let on that perhaps he has perfectly viable reasons for denouncing the torture and murder committed when meat is harvested.
If what you say is crap, then someone is likely to disagree.
A number of cannibals have testified that human flesh tastes great. A number of paedophiles have testified that sex with little children feels great. A number of serial killers have testified that gunning down women and children feels great. What's your point?
Feel free to parrot this, but please note that nobody on this thread, including you, has been able to justify why the torture and slaughter of sentient beings is moral. The best 'argument' presented is that since we crave meat, obviously it is natural. And to deny our natural urges CAN'T be immoral.
That would be a fantastic argument, if it didn't rely on an 'appeal to nature', which happens to be a whopping logic fallacy.
So might makes right? Fascinating! Perhaps I should overpower you and steal your wallet. After all, my superior intellect and power would make such an activity moral.
Why? Cannibals love the taste of roast baby flesh. Juicy and succulent, an with a lovely flavour similiar to pork.
If i can survive on veg foods then thinking twice/thrice before killing other animals/birds for food/delight/fancy needs a sharper conscience and needs a tendency to give secondary preference to selfishness over the lives/feelings of other animals.
It is not just a question of 'right or wrong'. It is more fundamental than right/wrong notions and involves conscience. If the conscience is sharper the better, but if it is more numb then more inclined to justify anything from slavery to cannibalism.
If my fellow humans starve i would not hesitate much to kill animals for food.
If my fellow humans want to have a good time with food i would wish no animals/birds/fish around.
It is not just a question of 'right or wrong'. It is more fundamental than right/wrong notions and involves conscience. If the conscience is sharper the better, but if it is more numb then more inclined to justify anything from slavery to cannibalism.
If my fellow humans starve i would not hesitate much to kill animals for food.
If my fellow humans want to have a good time with food i would wish no animals/birds/fish around.
dragon:
Tell me, dragon, how you would respond to this if it was directed at you:
Is this comment anything other than a cheap personal attack? Tell me, dragon.
And while you're making accusations of "harsh and intense", what do you think about this:
Or this:
Would you regard those comments as harsh and intense? Or is there another double standard at work here, too?
Based on what? A random guess?
If you really want to know if mountainhare and myself are the same person, read some of our previous posts, on other topics. It won't take you long to find threads in which we have discussed things and disagreed with each other.
Now, either that means I have a severe case of split personality, in which I argue with myself, or I'm promoting some kind of elaborate hoax, or we're two different people. Which of these explanations do you think is most likely?
Tell me, dragon, how you would respond to this if it was directed at you:
TW Scott said:
Is this comment anything other than a cheap personal attack? Tell me, dragon.
And while you're making accusations of "harsh and intense", what do you think about this:
dragon said:
Or this:
dragon said:
Would you regard those comments as harsh and intense? Or is there another double standard at work here, too?
Based on what? A random guess?
If you really want to know if mountainhare and myself are the same person, read some of our previous posts, on other topics. It won't take you long to find threads in which we have discussed things and disagreed with each other.
Now, either that means I have a severe case of split personality, in which I argue with myself, or I'm promoting some kind of elaborate hoax, or we're two different people. Which of these explanations do you think is most likely?
Last edited:
James R said:
both. actually i take it back, neither. The reason you are really not agreeing to anyone is to make this thread very long so that when one day should come you should promote it as the most disgussed topic ever on SF. I have uncovered your master plan and now it is crushed.
You know whats morally wrong? Animal testings.
But thats another story
One someone should start a thread on, think i will.....
hug-a-tree said:
oh really? did u know that majority of chemicals that today save millions of people's life were developed only as a result of majority of tests of these chemicals and their effect on animals? We are part of a human community/society, thus morality pertains to the ways of serving our humanity in the best way, in the process of which collateral damage is inevitalbe and even crucial for further development of our society to sustain itself.
Last edited:
In good company?
JamesR:
I haven't time right now to respond to your latest post in full, but I did want to take a moment to contribute to your cause. I came across what counts as historical precedent for your comparison that eating meat is equivalent to murdering humans:
See also: Wikipedia, "Tatian"
JamesR:
I haven't time right now to respond to your latest post in full, but I did want to take a moment to contribute to your cause. I came across what counts as historical precedent for your comparison that eating meat is equivalent to murdering humans:
I have seen men weighed down by bodily exercise, and carrying about the burden of their flesh, before whom rewards and chaplets are set, while the adjudicators cheer them on, not to deeds of virtue, but to rivalry in violence and discord; and he who excels in giving blows is crowned. These are the lesser evils; as for the greater, who would not shrink from telling them? Some, giving themselves up to idleness for the sake of profligacy, sell themselves to be killed; and the indigent barters himself away, while the rich man buys others to kill him. And for these the witnesses take their seats, and the boxers meet in single combat, for no reason whatever, nor does any one come down into the arena to succour. Do such exhibitions as these redound to your credit? He who is chief among you collects a legion of blood-stained murderers, engaging to maintain them; and these ruffians are sent forth by him, and you assemble at the spectacle to be judges, partly of the wickedness of the adjudicator, and partly of that of the men who engage in the combat. And he who misses the murderous exhibition is grieved, because he was not doomed to be a spectator of wicked and impious and abominable deeds. You slaughter animals for the purpose of eating their flesh, and you purchase men to supply a cannibal banquet for the soul, nourishing it by the most impious bloodshedding. The robber commits murder for the sake of plunder, but the rich man purchases gladiators for the sake of their being killed. (Tatian, "Address to the Greeks", 23)
See also: Wikipedia, "Tatian"
Last edited:
dragon:
We can discuss the ethics of drug testing on animals in another thread, if you like.
You might argue that the "collateral damage" from animal testing is necessary to provide long-term benefits to the human race, but the collateral damage from meat eating certainly is not.
We can discuss the ethics of drug testing on animals in another thread, if you like.
You might argue that the "collateral damage" from animal testing is necessary to provide long-term benefits to the human race, but the collateral damage from meat eating certainly is not.
James R said:
I replied because hug-a-tree has inquired of this issue.
And there is no collateral damage in eating meat. Meat is essential for human nutrition, there simply not enough fish or vegetables to constitute for the lack of meat. Moreover the current niche that humans occupy, with the amount of human species that curently exist of the planet, requires humans to intake a specific amount of animals in order to sustain the need food cycle balance. A parallel of this situation is an isolated park were rabbits dwell. If not sustained in numbers, the rabits will replicate to huge quantities to the point that they will consume all of the grass around them and anything edible. However with introduction of foxes the population of rabits will stabilize and so will the grass in the isolated park. Besides the killing of animals allows further advance in evolution, those that die contained worthless genes, and those who didnt contained the surviving genes. I for one thing must again say that there is nothing wrong in eating meat, since need is required for survival of population.
And one more thing, JAMES R. STOP DISSECTING MY AND EVERYONE ELSE'S SENTENCES, like we were dead fish and you were a scientist investigating the parts within. So, WHEN YOU READ THE ABOVE STATEMENT, instead of replying to one sentence, understand me as a whole, since every statement in the above paragraph has more detailed explanation following it.
In parallel, one does not take a sentence "go to the zoo"...and then dissect it with replies:
1) draqon: "go"... .......James R. replying: go where?
2) draqon: "the zoo"....James R. replying: what about the zoo?
I am ashamed to tell you this James R.
Last edited:
dragon:
Then stop acting like you have the brain of a dead fish. Think before you write.
Ok. Before I start, let me give you the wholistic overview. I think the whole of your argument is rubbish. Everything in your substantive paragraph contains errors and incorrect assumptions.
Now for the specifics:
What about the deaths of the animals involved? Do they have no interest in remaining alive? Do you think they don't really want to keep living?
This is false. Vegetarians get by just fine without meat, so obviously it is not essential.
I'm not sure what your argument is about "not enough vegetables". You'll need to explain.
As for fish ... er... fish are meat. They aren't vegetables.
So, you think you eat meat as some kind of community service, to control the populations of cattle, sheep, fish and so on, do you? Obviously, you don't know that the cattle and sheep you eat are bred specifically so you can eat them. They aren't naturally multiplying to the extent that their numbers will get out of control unless you eat lots of hamburgers. Farmers control the breeding of their animals. Didn't you know that?
As for fish, many fish stocks are currently decreasing and have been decreasing for years due to overfishing. So, if you're arguing about controlling numbers of fish, you're over-controlling them. You ought to eat less fish if for no other reason that to let the fish stocks recover.
There, dragon. Have I been fair to you? Or am I still chopping up your argument and not considering it as the beautiful, holistic masterpiece you obviously consider it to be?
Then stop acting like you have the brain of a dead fish. Think before you write.
Ok. Before I start, let me give you the wholistic overview. I think the whole of your argument is rubbish. Everything in your substantive paragraph contains errors and incorrect assumptions.
Now for the specifics:
What about the deaths of the animals involved? Do they have no interest in remaining alive? Do you think they don't really want to keep living?
This is false. Vegetarians get by just fine without meat, so obviously it is not essential.
I'm not sure what your argument is about "not enough vegetables". You'll need to explain.
As for fish ... er... fish are meat. They aren't vegetables.
So, you think you eat meat as some kind of community service, to control the populations of cattle, sheep, fish and so on, do you? Obviously, you don't know that the cattle and sheep you eat are bred specifically so you can eat them. They aren't naturally multiplying to the extent that their numbers will get out of control unless you eat lots of hamburgers. Farmers control the breeding of their animals. Didn't you know that?
As for fish, many fish stocks are currently decreasing and have been decreasing for years due to overfishing. So, if you're arguing about controlling numbers of fish, you're over-controlling them. You ought to eat less fish if for no other reason that to let the fish stocks recover.
There, dragon. Have I been fair to you? Or am I still chopping up your argument and not considering it as the beautiful, holistic masterpiece you obviously consider it to be?
James R: Who are these vegetarians you speak of, that go of fine without any meat and fish in their diet?
Indians? Have you ever seen those guys? They look like skeletons...barely can do any work if any at all. I just dont see how can one live a healthy life without consuming fish or meat?! Impossible...unless human civilization were to develop specialized nutrients/vitamin/protein/carbs pill for each human. Ok so lets say there is someone who follows a true vegetarian diet...eats no meat or fish...does that make that person really a healthy individual? does that person really get enough vitamins/nutrients? I just dont see were these people would get the B12 vitamin...without it all these vegetarian have elevated homocysteine levels which lead to early heart stroke, Alzheimer's disease, and neural tube defects. And the problem really with pills that have B12 is that vitamin in pill form or liquid, are really hard to be absorbed. Also as I have reviewed many forums on followers of vegetarian diet...it seems like all of these people become very tired much quicker then non-vegetarians.
Indians? Have you ever seen those guys? They look like skeletons...barely can do any work if any at all. I just dont see how can one live a healthy life without consuming fish or meat?! Impossible...unless human civilization were to develop specialized nutrients/vitamin/protein/carbs pill for each human. Ok so lets say there is someone who follows a true vegetarian diet...eats no meat or fish...does that make that person really a healthy individual? does that person really get enough vitamins/nutrients? I just dont see were these people would get the B12 vitamin...without it all these vegetarian have elevated homocysteine levels which lead to early heart stroke, Alzheimer's disease, and neural tube defects. And the problem really with pills that have B12 is that vitamin in pill form or liquid, are really hard to be absorbed. Also as I have reviewed many forums on followers of vegetarian diet...it seems like all of these people become very tired much quicker then non-vegetarians.
Last edited:
'Farmers control the breeding of their animals'.
sory but i couldnt be arsed going into reply and cutting out the rest
anyway they dont really control the breeding of the animals, they do it in select occasions not on a massive scale. most of the meat industry gets there meat from cows who have calfs on dairy farms but are meat calfs ie. if the farm has a bull which is a meat bull. so if a friesan cow has an angus bull then the dairy farmer gets rid of it. the same is for friesan bull calves, farmers dont need them so get rid of them
sory but i couldnt be arsed going into reply and cutting out the rest
anyway they dont really control the breeding of the animals, they do it in select occasions not on a massive scale. most of the meat industry gets there meat from cows who have calfs on dairy farms but are meat calfs ie. if the farm has a bull which is a meat bull. so if a friesan cow has an angus bull then the dairy farmer gets rid of it. the same is for friesan bull calves, farmers dont need them so get rid of them
dragon:
All of them. If you eat fish or meat, you're not a vegetarian, by definition.
Look into it. There are plenty of sites on the internet which will show you how.
I've already listed some vegetarian sources of B12 earlier in this thread. Go look. Or Google it.
Well, I can't say that of the many vegetarians I know.
thedevilsreject:
Yes they do. No cow breeds unless its owner wants it to. When the owner wants calves, he or she puts a bull in with the cows. At other times, bulls are separated from cows.
In fact, only female dairy cows are valued in the dairy industry, for obvious reasons. Virtually ALL male cows bred on dairy farms are sold for meat, whether they are Fresian, Angus, or whatever.
On the other hand, meat producers generally favour steers (neutered males), since they grow to a larger size than females in a shorter time.
Bottom line: when the cattle breed is totally controlled. What they breed is culled, according to economic considerations.
tiassa:
So, if we could check the health of humans to ensure cannibalism wouldn't pass on any nasty diseases, then eating humans would be fine?
All of them. If you eat fish or meat, you're not a vegetarian, by definition.
Look into it. There are plenty of sites on the internet which will show you how.
I've already listed some vegetarian sources of B12 earlier in this thread. Go look. Or Google it.
Well, I can't say that of the many vegetarians I know.
thedevilsreject:
Yes they do. No cow breeds unless its owner wants it to. When the owner wants calves, he or she puts a bull in with the cows. At other times, bulls are separated from cows.
In fact, only female dairy cows are valued in the dairy industry, for obvious reasons. Virtually ALL male cows bred on dairy farms are sold for meat, whether they are Fresian, Angus, or whatever.
On the other hand, meat producers generally favour steers (neutered males), since they grow to a larger size than females in a shorter time.
Bottom line: when the cattle breed is totally controlled. What they breed is culled, according to economic considerations.
tiassa:
So, if we could check the health of humans to ensure cannibalism wouldn't pass on any nasty diseases, then eating humans would be fine?