Is eating meat morally wrong

[Oniw17]

Man I love how you lie here. What you eat is of no moral or ethical importance unless what your eating is stolen from someone else or was someone else.

Huh? Why is that unethical at all? Maybe eating another person, but stealing food is definitely not unethical. If your smart enough to steal someone else's food, and not do the work yourself, it is not immoral, just a different lifestyle. What justifies someone growing food on land that they falsely bought from someone who didn't own it in the first place, or you working and buying food anymore than someone else working to take it from you? Materialistic society? If society and laws are all that justify it, then it's not makes no sense that your veiws should be accepted by anyone.

 

[James R]

If your smart enough to steal someone else's food, and not do the work yourself, it is not immoral, just a different lifestyle.

Our laws say that appropriating the property of another without consent is theft, and there are penalties attached.

It seems our society condemns the "different lifestyle" of thieves, but you don't think there's actually anything wrong with it?

 

[Oniw17]

No, I don't. I have a mind of my own that isn't comdemned by society. And again, if laws are the only thing to support a stance against that lifestyle, then it's baseless. But, what about our right for the pursuit of happiness? What gives you that right? What gives you the right to own anything that didn't come out of your own body? Somebody had to take it, or the materials to make it. No different than me taking your food.

 

[James R]

I have a mind of my own that isn't comdemned by society.

It is if you break the law.

And again, if laws are the only thing to support a stance against that lifestyle, then it's baseless.

No. Laws are based on a moral consensus of some kind. They aren't arbitrary.

But, what about our right for the pursuit of happiness? What gives you that right?

As a matter of law, your rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness may be enshrined in a Constitution, or bestowed by a monarch, or agreed by convention, depending on where you live.

As a matter of ethics, it is a generally accepted ethical principle that people should be free to pursue their own happiness provided that it doesn't negatively impact on the happiness of others. (This is a general principle. There are exceptions and qualifications.)

What gives you the right to own anything that didn't come out of your own body? Somebody had to take it, or the materials to make it. No different than me taking your food.

Property rights are among the most fundamental rights that humans have recognised. This is a complex matter. Look up laws relating to property if you doubt that.

You are free to own certain types of property. Other types of property are considered communal. Other types of property you cannot take as your own. When your claim to property competes with other people's claims to property, there are accepted methods for dealing with such conflicts.

How can you live in the world and not be aware of these fundamentals? I can only assume you are very young - probably a teenager, I'm imagining.

 

[Oniw17]

Sorry I took so long on the reply, I was almost done, then my internet shut down. But just because something's a law doesn't justify that law. Almost every species has thieves. Now, here's where you say that the naturality of it doesn't make it right. But that's not the argument. The argument is that stealing is a trait that has developed among those who lack other means to get what they need or are jus too lazy, for a long time in evolution actually. That is shown by the fact that so many species have the trait. Now you're going to say that because we have our society set up like we do, there is no need to steal. But I say that there's no reason to have our society set up the way we do. Everyone should get what they deserve. We have our governments set up to support every trait/interest that anyone could possibly have, except theft and a few others. Even murder is condoned in certain positions of society. You have your right to not eat meat. Many others have their right to use their negotiating skills to rob the poor. Thieves have been a part of society since societies have existed. Stealing is a way of life just like any other way of life, you cannot deny that. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that there is something immoral about them. A lot of people don't like atheists, so should we imprison them all(including me)? Just because there are laws about owning land that makes it right to own land in the first place? And if you own land, and grow your own food on it, why should you pay taxes? Inherent slavery was law too, and nobody's going to argue that it is right. Laws are not arbitrary? MORALS ARE ARBITRARY. Laws are just a way for your government to keep control of you.

 

[Tiassa]

MORALS ARE ARBITRARY.

They needn't be. It's just easier that way. Of course, this is why most commonly-accepted moral assertions are open to question in my book.

 

[TW Scott]

What are yours?

Not that it is any of your business but i suffer from Depression.

Come now, TW Scott. You must have been taught by now that there are a range of behaviours that are regarded as normal, and a range that are regarded as indicative of mental disturbance.

Actually the range is called functional. If you are able to function in society with only a few rough edges you're doing good.

If you'd been taught properly in your psych course, you would know I'm sane and rational. I can only draw one of two conclusions. Either the course itself and/or your instructor are far below standard, or you aren't bright enough or don't make enough effort to understand what you're being taught. I wanted to talk to your instructor to see if it was her or you that had the problem, but I guess I'll never know.

Seeing as how I have pulled a 95% and 97% in the two previous courses and am currently maintaining a 100% in this course I think perhaps your assumptions are erroneous. It's not just the instructor but allso the books. You have symptoms of everything from OCD to Inferiority complex, to deep seated psychoses. You are not sane, not in the least. I was trying to be polite about it, but you had to turn insulting.

Repeating your assertions doesn't make them any truer.

How true, becuase they cannot get true than true can they.

You have yet to produce any logical rationale for treating humans differently from other animals when it comes to basic rights to life. Maybe one day you'll come up with something. Who knows?

Why do I have to? The majority of the world has long settled this issue of whether eating meat is moral or not. They decided yes it is. You are the one challenging this claim. You are the one that has to prove beyond even the faintest whisper of a doubt that a live animal is as inherently valuable to society as a human being.

Better in what way? Less argumentative, you mean? Less likely to prick your conscience?

Well since there is nothing that my conscience should feel guilty about when it comes to eating meat, it would be impossible to prick. What i mean was they would be less hypocritical as well as better guest. I was raised that unless you are deathly allergic you eat what is offered to you by your host. Many vegetarians I have met have derided the host for having actually serving meat even when it was not to them.

You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?

Yes, if the world economy collapses at some stage, we'll all be in trouble. But not because we're vegetarian.

True, but I'll be in far less trouble than you. It isn't grasping. Your diet pollutes the environement much more than mine. It's a sad fact my friend.

A lot of research has already been done. Vegetarians seem to be less prone to heart disease and prostate cancer than meat eaters, to mention just a couple of results at random.

Notice the seem to part. And they are comparing vegans to people who eat friend porkchops for breakfast. Hardly a equal study. Now if both diets had the same calaoric-to-body intake, same salt intake, and same fat intake i think you would find the results to be roughly identical easily explianable by statistical error.

As for the facts relevant to the moral decision, they're all in already, so you can decide on that basis alone, quite apart from the health benefits of the vegetarian diet.

Oh yes Anemia is such a wonderful health benefit.

Most meat eaters never seriously consider their choice to eat meat, especially from a moral perspective. They just go along with the status quo that they've been brought up with. Every vegetarian and vegan, on the other hand, has considered the question and made a conscious choice.

Actually not vegetarians are concerend one with about the morality. In some cases it is a slight allergy to meat. With some it is a fad. Others becuase they give in to easily to trols like you . And still other for religious reasons. Not all of it is morality. Hell not even most is morality. Becuase if it was they would still be eating meat!

Who is right? The vegetarian/vegans of course.

Yeah, uh huh, keep telling yourself that.


Valuable in what way?

Economically, meat is more expensive than vegetables. It also costs much more to produce.

If you say plants and animals are on an equal footing in terms of intrinsic moral value, that is a different matter. The relevant question then becomes, once again, why you consider that humans are more valuable than both plants and all other animals. You're inconsistent in your own stated beliefs. Tell me: on what basis do you rank plants and animals as equal, but put humans on a separate, higher level? What characteristic do you use for your bizarre ranking scheme?



Not an imaginary line.

Ask your psych lecturer.

Animals (take mammals for a start if unsure) are sentient. Plants are not. That is a real difference, not an imagined one. Most people have no trouble appreciating that. (Maybe this is your mental problem. Everybody has one, apparently. Maybe you ought to include yourself in your paper.)



"Somehow"? Come now, I've already explained how to you.

Animals deserve rights by virtue of the Principle of Equal Consideration, which is the basis of every defensible moral system. Read the thread again if you need to refresh your memory.



You don't apply that standard to your children. In fact, I don't think you apply it to any human being. You have a clear double standard, with no valid reason.



You can't "prove" a moral imperative. All you can do is argue it in a logical, persuasive manner. Then, it is up to the person hearing the argument to choose to do what they know is right, or not.



Again with the double standard. What gives you the right to claim that I am mentally disturbed, to make emotional appeals, to be lazy and forgetful, while at the same time you aren't held to the same standards?

You'd look a lot better if you started practising what you preach. Otherwise, you risk looking like a hypocrite.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oniw17]

You have yet to produce any logical rationale for treating humans differently from other animals when it comes to basic rights to life. Maybe one day you'll come up with something. Who knows?

And you have yet to come up with any logical rationale to hold humans to a higher standard than animals. So it's alright for any other animal to eat another animal, but not for humans to do so? How can animals have all of the rights without obeying the same rules? If I were to try that, I would have my rights taken away.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Actually the range is called functional. If you are able to function in society with only a few rough edges you're doing good.

Then it looks like I'm doing better than good. How about you?

Seeing as how I have pulled a 95% and 97% in the two previous courses and am currently maintaining a 100% in this course I think perhaps your assumptions are erroneous.

No.

I said either you didn't work very hard, or the course was substandard. It looks like we've eliminated option 1, which leaves us with option 2.

Or, option 3 - maybe you just conveniently forget what you know when you get on the internet, in order to make babyish personal attacks when people disagree with you.

You have symptoms of everything from OCD to Inferiority complex, to deep seated psychoses.

You do make me laugh, TW Scott.

Tell me: what do think I'm obsessive about, to the extent of being diagnosable with OCD?

As for inferiority, I feel like I have an ego the size of a planet when dealing with the likes of you. You greatly boost my confidence that I am right.

And the other "deep seated psychoses"? What would they be?

Look, why don't you just post your amazing paper analysing me and other people on this board, so we can all take a look. Rather than telling us about the high quality of your work, let's see it first hand. It could hardly be worse than the drivel you're wasting your time posting in this thread.

You are not sane, not in the least. I was trying to be polite about it, but you had to turn insulting.

You don't think making childish accusations is insulting?

And why? All because you feel threatened by somebody who can produce arguments you have no answers for.

Your ego is bruised, so you choose to fling wild and ludicrous accusations around. You should write that paper about yourself.

The majority of the world has long settled this issue of whether eating meat is moral or not.

No, they haven't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

They decided yes it is. You are the one challenging this claim. You are the one that has to prove beyond even the faintest whisper of a doubt that a live animal is as inherently valuable to society as a human being.

Again, you forget our previous discussion, where I patiently explained to you that animals have intrinsic value beyond their value "to society" (by which, of course, you mean TW Scott).

Well since there is nothing that my conscience should feel guilty about when it comes to eating meat, it would be impossible to prick.

You obviously feel guilty. If you were truly comfortable with your behaviour, you wouldn't feel the need to so stridently attempt to defend yourself against perceived attacks, and you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominem attacks against those who challenge your shaky morals.

I was raised that unless you are deathly allergic you eat what is offered to you by your host. Many vegetarians I have met have derided the host for having actually serving meat even when it was not to them.

A polite host asks his or her guests in advance if they have any special dietary requirements. If leaving out the meat is too hard for the host, the vegetarian can then politely decline the invitation.

Your diet pollutes the environement much more than mine. It's a sad fact my friend.

Another baseless assertion.

Tell me, what led you to arrive at this bizarre conclusion?

A lot of research has already been done. Vegetarians seem to be less prone to heart disease and prostate cancer than meat eaters, to mention just a couple of results at random.

Notice the seem to part.

Yes. Seem to, on the basis of the best available current research. Like the Earth seems to revolve around the Sun. You know.

And they are comparing vegans to people who eat friend porkchops for breakfast. Hardly a equal study. Now if both diets had the same calaoric-to-body intake, same salt intake, and same fat intake i think you would find the results to be roughly identical easily explianable by statistical error.

I haven't even referred to a particular study, and you're trying to telling me what all such studies did and did not compare.

You've lost all objectivity. I think you're cracking under the pressure.

Actually not vegetarians are concerend one with about the morality. In some cases it is a slight allergy to meat. With some it is a fad. Others becuase they give in to easily to trols like you. And still other for religious reasons. Not all of it is morality. Hell not even most is morality. Becuase if it was they would still be eating meat!

You're partially right. Some people are vegetarian for health reasons. For some it is a fad. Others appreciate clear, persuasive arguments from knowledgable people like myself. I'm not aware of any vegetarian religions, but I admit it is a possibility. And some do it for moral reasons.

Er... what was your point again?

---

I notice that after this point you trailed off, foaming at the mouth I guess.

But I'm sure you'll be back.

 

[James R]

Oniw17:

But just because something's a law doesn't justify that law.

I agree. As I said before, laws are based in morality and a shared consensus in a society.

...stealing is a trait that has developed among those who lack other means to get what they need or are jus too lazy, for a long time in evolution actually. That is shown by the fact that so many species have the trait. Now you're going to say that because we have our society set up like we do, there is no need to steal. But I say that there's no reason to have our society set up the way we do. Everyone should get what they deserve. We have our governments set up to support every trait/interest that anyone could possibly have, except theft and a few others.

Governments are set up by societies, and reflect their values. (Well, democratic ones do, anyway).

Even murder is condoned in certain positions of society.

I don't think so. Certain types of killing are condoned in certain sets of very specific circumstances, but murder is almost universally considered a crime.

You have your right to not eat meat. Many others have their right to use their negotiating skills to rob the poor.

It depends what you call "robbing". Clearly, there are laws against theft. Are you trying to redefine theft?

Thieves have been a part of society since societies have existed. Stealing is a way of life just like any other way of life, you cannot deny that. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that there is something immoral about them.

So, if somebody breaks into your house and steals your computer, you'd have no problem with that? It would just be their way of life, right? There's nothing wrong with stealing the property of others.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it that you really think this way.

A lot of people don't like atheists, so should we imprison them all(including me)?

Depends. Do they do any harm? Do they prevent other people from practising different beliefs?

Just because there are laws about owning land that makes it right to own land in the first place?

No. But land ownership is a fairly abstract thing. You can't pick up your land and take it with you. With land, possession and occupation is often more relevant than "ownership". Whether it is right or wrong to occupy certain land is ultimately a matter of morality.

And if you own land, and grow your own food on it, why should you pay taxes?

If you are completely self-sufficient, I don't see why you should. But if you use services provided by the wider community, such as electricity, water, gas, roads, mail and so on, then the reason you should pay taxes is obvious.

Inherent slavery was law too, and nobody's going to argue that it is right.

People did argue it was right, but they were wrong. There was a civil war about it in America.

Laws are not arbitrary? MORALS ARE ARBITRARY. Laws are just a way for your government to keep control of you.

If you live in a democracy, your government is you. You vote for people to represent you. If you hand over control over you to somebody else, you do so by choice. Don't like the laws? Vote in a government which will change them.

Morality, however, is not completely arbitrary - even if Mr HonorandStrength (above) can't conceive of that. Some morality is built into our genes. Some has a very long and distinguished history in all human societies.

And you have yet to come up with any logical rationale to hold humans to a higher standard than animals. So it's alright for any other animal to eat another animal, but not for humans to do so?

Humans claim to be on a high moral plane. Humans claim to have the capacity to make moral decisions, based on rational thought.

I only want humans to be consistent in their morality. They cannot logically have one set of standards for themselves and a different set of standards for everything else on Earth. To do that is hypocritical.

How can animals have all of the rights without obeying the same rules?

I never said they should have all the same rights as humans. I have been talking about basic rights, such as the right not to be arbitrarily killed.

The fact is: we give rights to many groups of humans even though they cannot undertake responsibilities. Newborn infants have a recognised right not to be murdered, despite the fact that they have virtually no capacity for exercising moral choices or fulfilling any kind of reciprocal responsibilities to their societies.

Again, why the double standard when it comes to non-humans?

 

[TW Scott]

Then it looks like I'm doing better than good. How about you?

I wouldn't call you fully functional. You are far to passive aggressive and OCD to be fully functional.

No.

I said either you didn't work very hard, or the course was substandard. It looks like we've eliminated option 1, which leaves us with option 2.

Or, option 3 - maybe you just conveniently forget what you know when you get on the internet, in order to make babyish personal attacks when people disagree with you.

But we're working form reality here, not the confines of your deluded little brain. Here's the reality, your insane in the membrane, luckily only harmful to other people intelligence.

Tell me: what do think I'm obsessive about, to the extent of being diagnosable with OCD?

You continued line or argeument here. Most people in your position would have realized they defeated themselves pages ago and at least tried a different track. You keep on the same one even though it derailed your train and destroyed the cargo.

As for inferiority, I feel like I have an ego the size of a planet when dealing with the likes of you. You greatly boost my confidence that I am right.

People with an inferiority complex suffer form a need to prove they aren't inferior. they mock others, seize any authority they can, and arbitrarily declare themselves the winner and the best no matter the evidence.

And the other "deep seated psychoses"? What would they be?

I am not quite sure as I have not worked with you for a while. You predilection for comparing meat eating to rape is an indicator.

You don't think making childish accusations is insulting?

Didn't i just say that?

And why? All because you feel threatened by somebody who can produce arguments you have no answers for.

Why would i feel treatened. You aren't even a paper tiger. You are a paper lamb.

Your ego is bruised, so you choose to fling wild and ludicrous accusations around. You should write that paper about yourself.

I have written one about myself, and my sister, father and mother. I also have written papers on Gun Control, Ethics in Business, Cattle Raising, and so on

No, they haven't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Actually yes they have. You just are ignoring generations of history. Which is fine, just don't make bald face claims like that. Societies everywhere eat meat. They don't question it anymore becuase the question was settled long ago.

Again, you forget our previous discussion, where I patiently explained to you that animals have intrinsic value beyond their value "to society" (by which, of course, you mean TW Scott).

Funny how you put the wrong meaning to my words.I am not saying animals do not have value. Their value is companionship, research, food, clothing, or labor. You could possibly add in appearance and entertainment as well. However they are not equal to us. Just the facts man.

You obviously feel guilty. If you were truly comfortable with your behaviour, you wouldn't feel the need to so stridently attempt to defend yourself against perceived attacks, and you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominem attacks against those who challenge your shaky morals.

You know for one who flings around ad hominem attacks like they were tossing candy at a parade, you sure have a lot of nerve. More chutzpah then brains actually. I personally enjoy eating meat and feel no guilt whatsoever. What i will not abide is you trying to make inoccent people feel guilty for something that is not wrong.

A polite host asks his or her guests in advance if they have any special dietary requirements. If leaving out the meat is too hard for the host, the vegetarian can then politely decline the invitation.

First of all I did ask and made a wonderful vegetarian lasanga and I still got yelled at for thirty minutes becuase I was serving a regular lasanga as well. Same thing happened with my Aunt and my second cousin. I bent over backwards and received a tirade becuase i dare serve meat in the same room they were eating. Needless to say that friend is no longer a friend and even happier to say he had liver failure despite being Mr. Organic and never touching alcohol.

Yes. Seem to, on the basis of the best available current research. Like the Earth seems to revolve around the Sun. You know.

Best avaialble research. The same researchers that told us the cholesterol in eggs was three times higher than the actual figure, the same researcher who told us Aspartame was safe, the same researchers who claim the atkins diet doesn't work.....You get my point yet. Come back in 500 years when we have some real scientific proof.

I haven't even referred to a particular study, and you're trying to telling me what all such studies did and did not compare.

You've lost all objectivity. I think you're cracking under the pressure.

Just look at the studies. I've only seen one that tried to match fats and that one had the meat eater eating 4 pounds of meat a day. How many peopel do you know who eat that much meat.




You know i have tried to reason with you James R. I have point out several times that your argument rests on an opinion. You've based your opinion on a few facts but then made up your own for the rest. Yes some animals are treated poorly. Yes, some people completely objectify them. That's it. That's going to happen if you eat meat or not. Best way to stop it is to buy from sources that treat their animals well. Fund the good guy so he can expand, other wise you are just encouraging the asshole who has feedlots to buy the rancher out.

 

[Oniw17]

Oniw17:

I don't think so. Certain types of killing are condoned in certain sets of very specific circumstances, but murder is almost universally considered a crime.

Is this murder?

"While Washington and London were still congratulating themselves on the capture of Saddam Hussein," writes Robert Fisk in Baghdad, "US troops have shot dead at least 18 Iraqis in the streets of three major cities in the country. Dramatic videotape from the city of Ramadi 75 miles west of Baghdad showed unarmed supporters of Saddam Hussein being gunned down in semi-darkness as they fled from Americans troops. Eleven of the 18 dead were killed by the Americans in Samarra to the north of Baghdad."

??

So, if somebody breaks into your house and steals your computer, you'd have no problem with that? It would just be their way of life, right? There's nothing wrong with stealing the property of others.

Of course I would be made, because my way of life is aggressive to theirs. But it should be my responsibility, not the responsibility of institutional powers to do something about it. The reason that our laws are set against theft is because it conflicts with the way of life of the people who made the laws. The laws should not favor one way of life over another. The individual may do so, but the laws shouldn't be so biased.

Depends. Do they do any harm? Do they prevent other people from practising different beliefs?

And who eaxactly does theft harm? It prevents other people from having things, but doesn't having a job prevent other people from having that job?

No. But land ownership is a fairly abstract thing. You can't pick up your land and take it with you. With land, possession and occupation is often more relevant than "ownership". Whether it is right or wrong to occupy certain land is ultimately a matter of morality.

A tree or a lion occupies land, people claim ownership.

Morality, however, is not completely arbitrary - even if Mr HonorandStrength (above) can't conceive of that. Some morality is built into our genes. Some has a very long and distinguished history in all human societies.

Such as?

Humans claim to be on a high moral plane. Humans claim to have the capacity to make moral decisions, based on rational thought.

Yes?

I only want humans to be consistent in their morality. They cannot logically have one set of standards for themselves and a different set of standards for everything else on Earth. To do that is hypocritical.

That was my point.

I never said they should have all the same rights as humans. I have been talking about basic rights, such as the right not to be arbitrarily killed.

But you just said that there shouldn't be a different set of standards for other species. Chimps have been known to kill and eat small monkeys, bears kill and eat fish, isn't that the same thing? They could just as easily get food elsewhere.

The fact is: we give rights to many groups of humans even though they cannot undertake responsibilities. Newborn infants have a recognised right not to be murdered, despite the fact that they have virtually no capacity for exercising moral choices or fulfilling any kind of reciprocal responsibilities to their societies.

Every mammal does that with their newborn babies. So we hold adult animals to standard?

Again, why the double standard when it comes to non-humans?

[/QUOTE]
You're backwards, why the double standard for humans, both in our diet and in the the way we go about meeting our needs? Why do you hold a double standard when it comes to non-humans? A human can own land and a tree can't? You can only justify your double standards by using laws.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

I wouldn't call you fully functional. You are far to passive aggressive and OCD to be fully functional.

Your continued ad hominems are boring and have always been off-topic. Start a new thread, if you like, and we'll discuss your psychology course or whatever. You might want to start by putting your money where your mouth is and posting your term paper, or whatever it is. But not in this thread.

Since almost your entire previous post was a pointless personal attack, that doesn't leave much to respond to. Let me see...

Societies everywhere eat meat. They don't question it anymore becuase the question was settled long ago.

No.

If fact, the issue of animal rights did not become part of the general public consciousness until after 1975, the year when the philosopher Peter Singer first published his ground-breaking work Animal Liberation.

Funny how you put the wrong meaning to my words.I am not saying animals do not have value. Their value is companionship, research, food, clothing, or labor. You could possibly add in appearance and entertainment as well.

You missed the point yet again. I said that the only value you assign to animals is their value as means to your ends. And you confirm that I am right by your own words, over and over again, including in the above quote.

You seem to be incapable of seeing animals as having any intrinsic value. It's a mental blind spot for you, obviously.

However they are not equal to us. Just the facts man.

Nobody said animals were "equal" in the sense of being the same as humans. I have been arguing that they deserve basic rights.

You still don't get it, do you?

I personally enjoy eating meat and feel no guilt whatsoever.

For a man who thinks his actions need no defense, you sure spend a lot of time trying to rationalise them.

First of all I did ask and made a wonderful vegetarian lasanga and I still got yelled at for thirty minutes becuase I was serving a regular lasanga as well. Same thing happened with my Aunt and my second cousin. I bent over backwards and received a tirade becuase i dare serve meat in the same room they were eating. Needless to say that friend is no longer a friend and even happier to say he had liver failure despite being Mr. Organic and never touching alcohol.

I can't say I'm surprised you had this altercation, given your rabid views on meat eating. You probably frothed at the mouth at your vegetarian ex-friend, too.

Having said that, I do not think that strident vegetarianism of this kind is likely to win converts among meat eaters. Vegetarians need to be realistic enough to realise that some meat eaters get very defensive when their ethics are challenged, and that the mere existence of vegetarians is offensive to some meat-eaters, because it makes them confront their immorality. If the meat-eater host wants to make an issue of a person's vegetarianism, then the vegetarian has been invited into a debate. But otherwise, the vegetarian should not take a "holier-than-thou" approach. It should be obvious to all from the vegetarian's actions in personally refusing meat as to who is an who is not ethical.

Best avaialble research. The same researchers that told us the cholesterol in eggs was three times higher than the actual figure, the same researcher who told us Aspartame was safe, the same researchers who claim the atkins diet doesn't work.....You get my point yet. Come back in 500 years when we have some real scientific proof.

Your attempt to disparage science in general is unconvincing, and draws an even longer straw than you usually grasp at.

Yes some animals are treated poorly. Yes, some people completely objectify them.

You among them.

That's it. That's going to happen if you eat meat or not.

No. A good first step to prevent the objectification of animals is for people to stop eating meat, and know why they are stopping.

Best way to stop it is to buy from sources that treat their animals well. Fund the good guy so he can expand, other wise you are just encouraging the asshole who has feedlots to buy the rancher out.

Wow! A rare sign of good thinking. If you're serious about this, and will truly make an effort to buy free-range eggs, make sure the cattle you eat are kept in humane conditions, don't eat veal and so on, then I will be the first to applaud your actions, even if you can't stop yourself from eating meat completely. Any positive action is better than nothing. Minimal ethics is better than no ethics.

Congratulations, TW Scott. You may have just taken the first step towards becoming a better human being.

 

[James R]

Oniw17:

I think we're getting off-topic here. I'd be happy to discuss the foundations of the legal system in a separate thread, if you like. Same goes for whether theft is a crime or not. But as far as I can see, these things are irrelevant to the question of whether eating meat is moral or not.

So, what does that leave us with on the topic?

I never said they should have all the same rights as humans. I have been talking about basic rights, such as the right not to be arbitrarily killed.

But you just said that there shouldn't be a different set of standards for other species. Chimps have been known to kill and eat small monkeys, bears kill and eat fish, isn't that the same thing? They could just as easily get food elsewhere.

I also said that humans claim to have high moral standards and they also claim to be able to reason logically about moral questions. Last time I checked, chimps and bears made no such claims.

On the factual question of whether chimps could survive without killing the occasional monkey, or bears could survive without fish in the wild, I also have my doubts. What is beyond doubt, however, is that humans can survive perfectly well on a vegetarian diet.

You're backwards, why the double standard for humans, both in our diet and in the the way we go about meeting our needs? Why do you hold a double standard when it comes to non-humans? A human can own land and a tree can't?

Let's take this a step at a time.

First, you need to recognise that different people have different interests. A new-born baby has different interests than an adult human being. A 21 year old may have an interest in voting, whereas a 6 year old may not. To those different interests we attach different rights. On the other hand, 6 year olds and 21 year olds share an interest in not being arbitrarily killed, so both of them are said to have that right.

Second, you need to recognise that animals are not the same as human beings in every respect. Therefore, it follows that they should not necessarily have all the same rights. Giving a monkey the right to vote makes little sense, because the monkey has no interest in voting. But a monkey does have an interest in not being arbitrarily killed.

Now, fill in the gaps yourself.

 

[Oniw17]

Second, you need to recognise that animals are not the same as human beings in every respect. Therefore, it follows that they should not necessarily have all the same rights. Giving a monkey the right to vote makes little sense, because the monkey has no interest in voting. But a monkey does have an interest in not being arbitrarily killed.

Now, fill in the gaps yourself.

But in the wild, animals have an "intrest in having land, in fact, for most of them, their survival is dependant on it. What is the only logic to support why an animal cannot own land? 1. They could never live out the responsibilities of doing so; 2. it conflicts with our own interests. So, in the former case, what responsibilities does the cow uphold that it not be killed arbitrarily? And it's self explanatory that the cow not being eaten conflicts with our own interests. Your logic is baseless. If I were to have an interest to kill you, why would it not be my right? Because it conflicts with your interests.

 

[James R]

But in the wild, animals have an "intrest in having land, in fact, for most of them, their survival is dependant on it. What is the only logic to support why an animal cannot own land?

Having space in which to live and "owning" land in the human-defined sense are two different things. Non-human animals do not have a concept of "ownership" of land, so it makes no sense for us to recognise their right to land ownership.

1. They could never live out the responsibilities of doing so; 2. it conflicts with our own interests. So, in the former case, what responsibilities does the cow uphold that it not be killed arbitrarily?

I have already explained that the ability to carry out responsibilities is not necessary for the possession of rights. Human infants have many rights, but no responsibilities. Certain disabled human beings are in a similar situation. You cannot arbitrarily kill and eat a human being with Down's syndrome, even though that person may not be able to take moral responsibility for certain things. So, why is a cow different?

And it's self explanatory that the cow not being eaten conflicts with our own interests.

No. I don't need to eat the cow. Neither do you. The cow's interest in staying alive outweighs the momentary pleasure you would get from killing and eating it.

Your logic is baseless. If I were to have an interest to kill you, why would it not be my right? Because it conflicts with your interests.

Exactly. And you interest in killing the cow conflicts with its interests. See?

 

[madanthonywayne]

I have already explained that the ability to carry out responsibilities is not necessary for the possession of rights. Human infants have many rights, but no responsibilities. Certain disabled human beings are in a similar situation. You cannot arbitrarily kill and eat a human being with Down's syndrome, even though that person may not be able to take moral responsibility for certain things. So, why is a cow different?

So a human infant or an individual with Down's Syndrome is the moral equivalent of a cow! They are human beings. I don't care if a person has an IQ of fifty or one hundred and fifty, he has rights. He matters more than a cow. He matters more than all cows put together.

If a cow and a person with Down's syndrome were trapped on a bus that was about to explode and you had time to save only one, who would it be? Would you flip a coin, since they are morally equal?

I assume you eat something, so clearly you ascribe a higher moral value to animal life than plant life. Why does this scale of moral value cease to function once you get to the level of humans?

 

[mountainhare]

madan:

So a human infant or an individual with Down's Syndrome is the moral equivalent of a cow!

Why do you find such an assertion so problematic? Is a human infant any more sentient than a cow? Is a human infant more sensitive to pain?

They are human beings. I don't care if a person has an IQ of fifty or one hundred and fifty, he has rights. He matters more than a cow. He matters more than all cows put together.

And that's what James, myself, and animal rights activists all over the globe can't understand. Why do you award special rights to human beings, and not cows? It's obviously not intelligence or sentience, because you have made it clear that a human infant (who has mental faculties similar to, or inferior to, a cow) has more rights than any other animal.

 

[madanthonywayne]

madan:
Why do you find such an assertion so problematic? Is a human infant any more sentient than a cow? Is a human infant more sensitive to pain?

What is pain? A subjective interpretation of stimuli induced by damage to one's body? The abillty to percieve such stimuli should determine who has rights? So if we inject animals with numbing medication before killing them, is it OK then? Also, does a quadripeligic have fewer rights because he can not feel pain below the neck?

And that's what James, myself, and animal rights activists all over the globe can't understand. Why do you award special rights to human beings, and not cows? It's obviously not intelligence or sentience, because you have made it clear that a human infant (who has mental faculties similar to, or inferior to, a cow) has more rights than any other animal.

To be blunt, and honest, it pretty damned simple. I am human. Therefore, I value human life above all other. I would say that the defining characteristic of humanity is our intellegence, and I would not eat an animal with human or near human intellegence. But a human does not stop being a human just because of a tempory or permanent state of mental deficiency. Humans care for one another. The weak, the sick, the young need our help. To claim they have no more rights than a cow is insane.

 

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

So a human infant or an individual with Down's Syndrome is the moral equivalent of a cow!

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that cows deserve at least some basic rights - such as the right not to be arbitrarily killed and eaten, for example.

They are human beings. I don't care if a person has an IQ of fifty or one hundred and fifty, he has rights. He matters more than a cow. He matters more than all cows put together.

Why?

You're essentially saying that just because one individual is a member of a particular species and another is not, one individual should have basic rights and the other have none.

The same argument when applied to groups of human beings leads to racism, sexism, homophobia and so on. Do you advocate those? If not, why are you so keen on that other -ism - speciesism?

If a cow and a person with Down's syndrome were trapped on a bus that was about to explode and you had time to save only one, who would it be? Would you flip a coin, since they are morally equal?

I didn't say they were morally equal. I might well choose to save the human in that situation.

But your choice is between killing and eating a cow or letting it live a normal life. And what is that weighed against? In your bus example, if I save the cow, the human dies, which most people would agree is very bad. In the example of eating the cow, what bad thing happens if you don't eat the cow? Nothing. You eat it because you want to. You like the taste. You don't eat the cow; the bad thing is you lose some momentary selfish enjoyment.

Sorry, but I don't agree that your momentary entertainment justifies taking a sentient life.

I assume you eat something, so clearly you ascribe a higher moral value to animal life than plant life. Why does this scale of moral value cease to function once you get to the level of humans?

It doesn't. I am not advocating that non-humans have all the rights of humans. I've said so many times.

What is pain? A subjective interpretation of stimuli induced by damage to one's body? The abillty to percieve such stimuli should determine who has rights? So if we inject animals with numbing medication before killing them, is it OK then? Also, does a quadripeligic have fewer rights because he can not feel pain below the neck?

What do you think?

Your position is that it is ok to kill a cow any time you feel like a steak, regardless of any pain it feels.

You need to justify your behaviour. Rather than fighting my reasons against killing animals, how about you give good reasons for killing and eating them? If you have any, that is.

To be blunt, and honest, it pretty damned simple. I am human. Therefore, I value human life above all other.

So, it's just speciesism. Just like racism, where you prefer your own race to all other races, you prefer your own species to all other species. Are you sexist and homophobic, too?

I would say that the defining characteristic of humanity is our intellegence, and I would not eat an animal with human or near human intellegence.

Have you measured the IQ of a newborn baby? Would you eat it? What about the mentally disabled person? What about an idiot with an IQ of 60? Would eating him be ok?

But a human does not stop being a human just because of a tempory or permanent state of mental deficiency. Humans care for one another. The weak, the sick, the young need our help. To claim they have no more rights than a cow is insane.

Then it's a good thing nobody is claiming that!