Is eating meat morally wrong
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
I'm refering to a more primitive hunting.
Meant by who?
Our own nature. Hunting is why we developed the first tools, and I believe it's why we invented language. I'll go back and try to find the pages where you debunked that humans are meant to eat meat, then I'll repost.
Meant by who?
Our own nature. Hunting is why we developed the first tools, and I believe it's why we invented language. I'll go back and try to find the pages where you debunked that humans are meant to eat meat, then I'll repost.
Actually according to the ayurveda meat is a good source of vitamins - the problem is that the things that the body produces from it, like blood, marrow, muscle, skin, etc, are all second grade - in other words meat is like cheap shoddy building materials for your body
i think humans were designed to eat whatever was available
we are actually omnivores so could survive on most things from grubs to tree bark
some of us choose not to eat meat through taste or a conscious decision to avoid meat as a political statement
meat production from the 20th century has used up vast amounts of the world's natural resources
eating meat is perhaps not as morally questionable as the way in which it is now produced - but i may be guilty of a slightly circular argument
as for hunting - yes the majority of humans may have done so at various times in the past as a matter of survival some out of necessity do so today. Those who choose to hunt for 'pleasure' well hardly a level playing field is it? therefore hunting in the modern sense is morally questionable as is eating meat
we are actually omnivores so could survive on most things from grubs to tree bark
some of us choose not to eat meat through taste or a conscious decision to avoid meat as a political statement
meat production from the 20th century has used up vast amounts of the world's natural resources
eating meat is perhaps not as morally questionable as the way in which it is now produced - but i may be guilty of a slightly circular argument
as for hunting - yes the majority of humans may have done so at various times in the past as a matter of survival some out of necessity do so today. Those who choose to hunt for 'pleasure' well hardly a level playing field is it? therefore hunting in the modern sense is morally questionable as is eating meat
Oniw17:
So, do you think we should stay back in the stone age? Were we "meant" to have dishwashers and computers and cars?
What you're arguing is that because we can hunt, we should. But that doesn't follow. We can drop nuclear bombs on cities. Were we "meant" to? Should we?
Muslim:
You don't need to eat meat. You can get all the nutrients you need from vegetarian sources.
Go back and read the whole thread before you chime in with more of this nonsense.
So, do you think we should stay back in the stone age? Were we "meant" to have dishwashers and computers and cars?
What you're arguing is that because we can hunt, we should. But that doesn't follow. We can drop nuclear bombs on cities. Were we "meant" to? Should we?
Muslim:
You don't need to eat meat. You can get all the nutrients you need from vegetarian sources.
Go back and read the whole thread before you chime in with more of this nonsense.
Last edited:
Love how he leaves out the B vitamin complex, some of which you CANNOT process eccept from Animal flesh or by-product. Not to mentuion the absolute easiest way to get whole protein is meat. Sure you can do rice and beans, but you can't grow them everywhere.
That is questionable if not flat out wrong.James R said:
My main objections to vegetarianism are twofold. First, that eating meat, or at least animal products, is natural and necesary for good nutrition.
Second, being a vegetarian seems, to me, to be an effete affectation of someone lacking the will to live in the real world. Someone who thinks that the world is full of bunnies and lollipops where no one, not even animals, ever dies.
I can't see a vegetarian storming a beach in Normandy, fighting to the last man at the Alamo, or fighting hand to hand with terrorists aboard flight ninety-three.
In my mind, a vegetarian is skinny to the point of being sickly. Probably a drug user. Definately a member of the far left. Essentially, this boils down to Cartman's reason for not using drugs:
"Don't do drugs, because drugs are for hippies, and hippies suck"
TW Scott;
Pretending to have forgotten our previous discussion on this again? How dishonest of you.
It is totally false to say that you must eat meat to get B-group vitamins. And you know it, because I already linked you to information on that matter.
You can't raise animals everywhere either, not that that's in the least bit relevant.
Pretending to have forgotten our previous discussion on this again? How dishonest of you.
It is totally false to say that you must eat meat to get B-group vitamins. And you know it, because I already linked you to information on that matter.
You can't raise animals everywhere either, not that that's in the least bit relevant.
'Is eating meat morally wrong?'
My answer to that question is : Are you serious?
My answer to that question is : Are you serious?
madanthonywayne:
Question it all you like. It isn't wrong.
Vitamin B12 is found in dairy products and eggs. Apart from that, for vegans for example, there are many fortified foods which contain vitamin B12.
Note that no animal makes vitamin B12. B12 is made by bacteria. Animals get B12 from eating foods already contaminated with B12, so that they then in turn become a source.
As for vitamin A, it is found in dark green and yellow vegetables and yellow fruits, including broccoli spinach, turnip greens, carrots, squash, sweet potatoes, pumpkin, cantaloupe, apricots, milk, butter, cheese, and whole eggs.
It is not necessary.
Your argument that it is "natural" is just the n-th repetition of the appeal to nature fallacy that TW Scott and others have been pushing throughout this thread.
To repeat myself yet again, what is natural is not automatically right and good. Now go back and read the thread if you want an expansion of that point. I'm sick of repeating myself.
Oh, if only I knew what is it was like to be a BIG MAN in the "REAL WORLD"! We could go a-huntin' and a-fishin' and picking up chicks together. We could burn some rubber on the road and cruise the highways yelling racist taunts at passers-by! Then, we could come home and wring the necks of a few chickens, throw them in the pot and suck on their bones. What fun!
Give me a break.
Do you think people must be violent to be REAL MEN?
Sounds like a psychological hang-up you need to sort out.
Question it all you like. It isn't wrong.
Vitamin B12 is found in dairy products and eggs. Apart from that, for vegans for example, there are many fortified foods which contain vitamin B12.
Note that no animal makes vitamin B12. B12 is made by bacteria. Animals get B12 from eating foods already contaminated with B12, so that they then in turn become a source.
As for vitamin A, it is found in dark green and yellow vegetables and yellow fruits, including broccoli spinach, turnip greens, carrots, squash, sweet potatoes, pumpkin, cantaloupe, apricots, milk, butter, cheese, and whole eggs.
It is not necessary.
Your argument that it is "natural" is just the n-th repetition of the appeal to nature fallacy that TW Scott and others have been pushing throughout this thread.
To repeat myself yet again, what is natural is not automatically right and good. Now go back and read the thread if you want an expansion of that point. I'm sick of repeating myself.
Oh, if only I knew what is it was like to be a BIG MAN in the "REAL WORLD"! We could go a-huntin' and a-fishin' and picking up chicks together. We could burn some rubber on the road and cruise the highways yelling racist taunts at passers-by! Then, we could come home and wring the necks of a few chickens, throw them in the pot and suck on their bones. What fun!
Give me a break.
Do you think people must be violent to be REAL MEN?
Sounds like a psychological hang-up you need to sort out.
While the fact that something is natural does not necesarily mean it is good, I would say the burden of proof lies with the side claiming the natural is "bad".James R said:
Consider the term "inalienable rights". The concept there is that the nature of man implies certain rights. That we have "natural" rights. Now if the fact that something is natural means nothing, what is the basis for human rights?
Men are the protectors. We have evolved to defend our women and children from the trepidations of a hostile world. It is why we are bigger, stronger, and faster. Being quick to violence does not make one a man, but being willing to fight when the situation demands it does.
I think it is up to whoever is making a claim to support it.
Essentially, you're asking what the basis of human morality is. The answer is that human morality is based to a certain extent on how human beings have evolved, but also on how human societies have evolved. Individual moral decisions are made for all kinds of reasons, partly biological, partly due to conditioning and learning, partly due to life experiences and social interactions and many other factors besides.
A good ethical system should be consistent in its application. It should treat like the same as like, unless there is some defensible reason to do otherwise. Much thought has been put into setting down ethical standards over the years, so no single human needs to try to reinvent the wheel. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, could not have been drawn up without the existence of previous great thinkers and philosophers, who whittled down and made sense of the bases for human ethics.
Do you really believe that all wars are defensive wars? That is naive.
It is much more complicated than that.
So, is a peaceful man is some kind of wimp in your world? Is somebody who seeks peace by diplomacy some kind of "effete" man, in your opinion?
I repeat that this says much more about you than about the "real world" you're so fond of talking about.
James R said:
Sorry, I would have to devolve in my thinking process to participate in this conversation seriously.
First, I would have to believe the word 'moral' means anything. What is moral to you is not moral to me. Moral is completely subjective to person, time, and place.
Next, I would have to further believe that there is such a thing as 'wrong'. See above.
Thirdly, I would have to begin to believe there is some sort of universal rules/laws of acceptable eating habits or just behavior in general and begin to question my way of life according to this.
Fourthly, I would have to totally ignore the fact that meat is an essential part of our diet. Is it wrong for a lion to eat an antelope?
Finally, I would have to compile all of this together, and say 'is eating meat morally wrong'
You chose to partipate. You can always choose to unparticipate. And don't worry, I could tell you weren't serious. If you were serious, you might make a half-decent point.
I've covered this one earlier in the thread.
Morality is not "completely subjective", as you claim.
Go back and read the whole thing if you're interested.
Yes. You would have to. It's always easier not to think about your own behaviour, but instead assume you always do the right thing.
It isn't. As I have established previously. Many times.
Let's deal with your behaviour first. We can worry about the lion's morality later. You have control over yourself. At least, I assume you do.
Yes, that's right. It's all probably too much effort for you.
No, not interested. I'll leave you with your vegetarian discussions.
Clearly, I rather not throw pearls before swine.
"Morality is not "completely subjective", as you claim." - james R
ha! I think I'll preserve this quote to be my favorite from you, Jimmy R.
The part about human evolution being directly linked to meat consumption is largely ignored by you, eh Jimmy? Now that you can pick and choose where to supplement those essential amino acids and proteins that are found in meat. We can pick and choose them with our fabulous brainpower. I wonder how we got the energy to evolve our fabulous brain with which you use to write gibberish on internet boards?
Jimmy, you are one funny guy!
Clearly, I rather not throw pearls before swine.
"Morality is not "completely subjective", as you claim." - james R
ha! I think I'll preserve this quote to be my favorite from you, Jimmy R.
The part about human evolution being directly linked to meat consumption is largely ignored by you, eh Jimmy? Now that you can pick and choose where to supplement those essential amino acids and proteins that are found in meat. We can pick and choose them with our fabulous brainpower. I wonder how we got the energy to evolve our fabulous brain with which you use to write gibberish on internet boards?
Jimmy, you are one funny guy!
Last edited:
To answer your question JamesR, no I wouldn't like us to go back back to the stoneage. At the same time, I do think our lives are far too luxurious. The reason is because we are becoming weaker as a species. By weaker I mean that we aren't evolving to the changes in our environment, and are becoming less likely to survive in the future. A good example of this would be that we don't have much capacity to eat raw meat due to our shrunk appendixes. Or that air conditioning and heating are stopping use from adapting to the temperature. Sure we are smart enough to keep our species alive, but we will just keep needing more and more support(such as clothing) to do so. You can change your natural diet, but the more you do so the more that you will have to add on to your diet. Eventually, both the resources that we exploit to maintain our survival, and the foods that you use in exchange for all the nutrition in meat, will not be available. That probably won't happen any time soon, since we still have an abundance of resourses, but it will happen, as we don't have infinite resources. Until then we will continue to become more dependent on technology, and vegetarians will become more dependent on their artificial eating habits.
"Morality is not "completely subjective", as you claim." - james R
]
OH JIMMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It just gets funnier as the days pass!!!!!!
]
OH JIMMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It just gets funnier as the days pass!!!!!!
James R said:
No I remember it quite well and I also remember how those same websites said in very plain english that it was absolutely neccesarry to eat meat or animal by products to gain the full range of essential nutrition. That cutting out all meat and by products was subjecting yourself to experiment that so far nobody has survived.
I remembered quite well and cherished my victory over you failure to fully read.
Show me a place without animals life where man lives?