Is eating meat morally wrong
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
Because the other "ism's" equate some groups of humans with animals, which is wrong. To quote Thomas Jefferson:James R said:
All men are created equal. To treat them as otherwise is wrong. But animals are not men, they do not have the ability to enter into a social contract whereby we respect their rights and they'll respect ours. Animals live by the law of the jungle. Dog eat dog. When dealing with them, we should follow the same rules.
You might! You'd have to consider the decision, I see. I hope my Down's syndrome son is never in a situation where he requires your assistance. At least not if there's a cow nearby that requires similiar assistance.
mad:
Can a human infant willingly enter into a social contract?
madanthonywayne:
It is not necessary to "equate" humans and non-humans for all purposes. But can you give a good (non-selfish) reason for denying non-humans a basic right to life that we give all humans.
You realise, of course, that when Tom said "all men" he was excluding women. He wasn't protesting for women's rights to vote, for example.
We've moved on a little from Jefferson's time. We've widened the moral circle of beings which we consider to be morally equal for various purposes. These days, we think slavery and sexism are wrong. And the enlightened ones among us think homosexuals ought to have the same rights as heterosexuals. And gradually, people are coming around to the idea that we ought to include non-human animals in the moral circle, too.
Start living in the 21st century rather than the 19th.
Why? Don't you think you're on a higher moral plane? Doesn't that mean you should set an example for others?
It is not necessary to "equate" humans and non-humans for all purposes. But can you give a good (non-selfish) reason for denying non-humans a basic right to life that we give all humans.
You realise, of course, that when Tom said "all men" he was excluding women. He wasn't protesting for women's rights to vote, for example.
We've moved on a little from Jefferson's time. We've widened the moral circle of beings which we consider to be morally equal for various purposes. These days, we think slavery and sexism are wrong. And the enlightened ones among us think homosexuals ought to have the same rights as heterosexuals. And gradually, people are coming around to the idea that we ought to include non-human animals in the moral circle, too.
Start living in the 21st century rather than the 19th.
Why? Don't you think you're on a higher moral plane? Doesn't that mean you should set an example for others?
madanthonywayne said:
Are you serious? What do you mean by equal? If you're talking about basic human rights then that depends on the society you're born into.
What rules of the jungle? Show me how the meat industry (or any industry that uses animals) follows the rules of the jungle!
Theoryofrelativity said:
Killing is only morally right, when done in self defense or for survival. I think humans do need meat, or types of protien for survival, however we do have other options besides mammals. We have fish such as sharks and whales we could eat. We have insects we could eat. We have a vast array of protien sources to choose from that would more ethical to consume as well as more efficient for the eco-system.
I think the animals we should not be eating are the animals which eat grass all day, why exactly do we hunt deer and cow when deer and cow does not hunt other animals, but animals which hunt other animals, we protect?
I think people are more prone to eat meat at this point for cultural not moral or rational reasons. If we developed the technlogy to eat bacteria, mushrooms and other sources of animal free protien I think that would be the most ethical solution. The next best solution would be to hunt in a rational eco-friendly way, so we'd have to change our eating habits seasonally, and eat whale for a while, shark for a while, cats and dogs for a while, and just cycle through the different species.
I think however we should hunt and eat in specific the species that are most dangerous to us. We should keep population counts, we should avoid over hunting any species, there should be only a select few who follow strict laws who get to hunt, I do not think hunting for sport is ethical. I think some animals are completely harmless and should not be hunted at all. Why do we eat chickens and birds? We prefer to take the lazy route and eat farm animals that aren't even carnivores, I think as a rule we should only hunt carnivores, and only hunt the carnivores which are both over populated and which would just as easily hunt us if it were hungry.
If you farmed, tigers for example, you can hunt eat the tiger knowing that if the situation were reversed and the tiger were hungry, it would have moral justification in hunting you. So in specific, man should hunt the enemies of man. If a species is known to eat human, humans should eat it.
Last edited:
So your only argument is that they can't uphold the responsibilities of owning land? That conflicts with your other arguments.James R said:
Human infants are expected to uphold certian responsibilities at some point in their life. While they aren't, their parents, or somebody else takes on their responsiblities for them. Most disabled people are expected to pay taxes. If you mean hospitalized people, that raises a different arguement. But, for the most part, somebody else takes care of their societal responsibilities.
No, I don't NEED to, but I have an intrest in doing so. Just like you don't NEED to have your big screen TV or the extra food in your kitchen, but you still have a problem with someone robbing you.
Again, we should give animals the same rights they give each other. The strong eat the weak.James R said:
How can one set an example for an unthinking brute? Animals act according to their instincts, any example we set will have no impact.
Do you really think we've moved on since the days of the founding fathers? I'll tell you what, I would not trust any group of modern politicians with the power to write a new constitution from scratch as the founding fathers did. The American constitution and the Bill of Rights are a miracle. Washington could have been king. Everyone kind of expected it. Madison promised to propose the Bill of rights as ammendmends once the main body of the constitution was passed, but no one really expected him to. Then he actually did it. Imagine, politicians who did what they promised!
For the first time in human history, we had a government designed with limits to its power. We were citizens, not subjects.
The twentieth century saw us backing further and further from the ideal of limited government. What I wouldn't give for a Washington, a Jefferson, or a Lincoln today. America has always been blessed with great leaders stepping forward when they were really needed. If any are out there now, they must be laying low.
Moved on, give me a break. And "widening the circle" of human rights to include animals makes a mockery of the entire thing. If anyone had thought it would actually come to this, it would have made a great argument against civil rights. Imagine:
"Sure, give rights to the dames and the coloreds, next thing you know, they'll be demanding rights for monkeys!"
Oniw17:
I didn't say that. I said that non-human animals have no concept of land ownership.
My point was that we recognise their rights when they in fact uphold no responsibilities.
Fine. Then you can take on responsibilities on behalf of the animals whose right to life you recognise, in a similar way.
The cow's life outweighs your wish for momentary pleasure, as I said before.
I didn't say that. I said that non-human animals have no concept of land ownership.
My point was that we recognise their rights when they in fact uphold no responsibilities.
Fine. Then you can take on responsibilities on behalf of the animals whose right to life you recognise, in a similar way.
The cow's life outweighs your wish for momentary pleasure, as I said before.
madanthonywayne:
Why? I thought humans were supposed to be rational and "enlightened" beings.
You can set an example for other humans, regarding your positive ethical traits and your ability to reason.
In terms of well-articulated ethics? Yes, especially in matters of animal rights. We are also more enlightened in our attitudes to women, homosexuals, people of other races etc. We still have a way to go with all of these things, but progress is obvious.
Not at all. It's a simple matter of applying moral principles equally - giving Equal Consideration to matters which are equal. Treating like as like.
I'm sure that such slippery-slope arguments were made.
Why? I thought humans were supposed to be rational and "enlightened" beings.
You can set an example for other humans, regarding your positive ethical traits and your ability to reason.
In terms of well-articulated ethics? Yes, especially in matters of animal rights. We are also more enlightened in our attitudes to women, homosexuals, people of other races etc. We still have a way to go with all of these things, but progress is obvious.
Not at all. It's a simple matter of applying moral principles equally - giving Equal Consideration to matters which are equal. Treating like as like.
I'm sure that such slippery-slope arguments were made.
How do you define land ownership? As a privilage which requires certain responsibilities to be upheld? A dog is terrotorial, doesn't that convey that the dog "owns" the land?James R said:
But other animals don't recognise the rights of human infants, why should we recognise the rights of other animals. Nevermind, it's because humans have claimed that they are on a higher ground than other animals. I've never made that statement in my life. But I still have to uphold the responsibilities that society forces on me.
What will they contribute to in their lives, besides to science and entertainment? An infant grows up to vote, contribute to the economy, contribute socially to the community, and possibly to contribute to the next generation of infants. Can a cow do any of that?
Why does the cows life outweigh the energy that I can use from the cow to contribute to my community? Surely, I can put the cow's energy to better use.
Oniw17:
I'm not going to teach you property law here. Look it up yourself.
You keep missing the point. This is the third time I've said this: the ability to undertake responsibilities is not a prerequisite for having rights.
Think about it.
Like TW Scott, you assume that the only value an animal has is in what it can give you or other human beings. In making that assumption, you fail to recognise its intrinsic value as a creature worthy of moral consideration.
Do you believe that your own personal value is only in what you can do for other human beings? Do you agree that you should be shot when you're no longer useful to other humans? What if other people decide the best use for you is as food? Would it be acceptable to kill you then?
You are so far off the moral map here that I am struggling for a response.
I'm not going to teach you property law here. Look it up yourself.
You keep missing the point. This is the third time I've said this: the ability to undertake responsibilities is not a prerequisite for having rights.
Think about it.
Like TW Scott, you assume that the only value an animal has is in what it can give you or other human beings. In making that assumption, you fail to recognise its intrinsic value as a creature worthy of moral consideration.
Do you believe that your own personal value is only in what you can do for other human beings? Do you agree that you should be shot when you're no longer useful to other humans? What if other people decide the best use for you is as food? Would it be acceptable to kill you then?
You are so far off the moral map here that I am struggling for a response.
James R said:
Repeating you assertion does not make more correct. Oh wait that a James R.ism. Okay so you've said it three time you're out.
I love how you assume I believe that is the only value. It's not but then again the only value that merits discussion is of what use is it to humans. And I do feel animals arew worthy of moral consideration. Farmed animals should well treated up until their slaughter.
No, and what a strange way of looking at it. No, and I am not proposing that people shoot animals becuase they are no longer useful, just the opposite is true. Well, that would be a crime in this society, not to mention unnatural. For them it would be, not for me, but then again this is the point HUMANS decide MORALS. Since HUMANS eat animals then it is completely MORAL to kill them before eating them.
Of course, it's hard to fight the truth.
James,
You and I arguing about this issue is like a Bears fan and a Packers fan arguing over which team is better. You will never convince me that I shouldn't eat meat. You might convince me that I shouldn't eat some particular animal {say, primates, which I wouldn't eat or dolphins}, but I just can't be convinced that humans should restrict themselves to eating a diet better suited to cows and other unthinking herd animals, when they are meant to eat everything.
Conversely, you are clearly not about to switch positions. A pity. There's nothing like a big juicy steak.
On that note, I'm getting pretty hungry. Time for a midnite snack. Perhaps a club sandwich. That would include meat from pigs, cows, and turkeys!
You and I arguing about this issue is like a Bears fan and a Packers fan arguing over which team is better. You will never convince me that I shouldn't eat meat. You might convince me that I shouldn't eat some particular animal {say, primates, which I wouldn't eat or dolphins}, but I just can't be convinced that humans should restrict themselves to eating a diet better suited to cows and other unthinking herd animals, when they are meant to eat everything.
Conversely, you are clearly not about to switch positions. A pity. There's nothing like a big juicy steak.
On that note, I'm getting pretty hungry. Time for a midnite snack. Perhaps a club sandwich. That would include meat from pigs, cows, and turkeys!
TW Scott:
Yes. But it does help drive home the point to those who missed it the first few times.
I draw this conclusion from your own statements. But in case I am wrong...
Answer a straight question: what value do you believe animals have, other than in terms of their value to you or other human beings?
Hang on! Let me get this straight. You're saying that animals have value apart from their value to humans, but you're also saying the only value that matters is their value to humans. Isn't that just a tad inconsistent?
Again, a straight question: WHY do you think farmed animals should be treated well up until their slaughter?
There's that word "unnatural" again, with the implication that unnatural is bad. A kind of reverse appeal to nature.
Humans decide human morals, I'll grant. The morality of eating meat does not at all follow from that bare fact. Your ability to reason logically is, to say the least, shaky.
Isn't it.
Yes. But it does help drive home the point to those who missed it the first few times.
I draw this conclusion from your own statements. But in case I am wrong...
Answer a straight question: what value do you believe animals have, other than in terms of their value to you or other human beings?
Hang on! Let me get this straight. You're saying that animals have value apart from their value to humans, but you're also saying the only value that matters is their value to humans. Isn't that just a tad inconsistent?
Again, a straight question: WHY do you think farmed animals should be treated well up until their slaughter?
There's that word "unnatural" again, with the implication that unnatural is bad. A kind of reverse appeal to nature.
Humans decide human morals, I'll grant. The morality of eating meat does not at all follow from that bare fact. Your ability to reason logically is, to say the least, shaky.
Isn't it.
madanthonywayne:
Never say never! I doubt I'll convince you now. But in 6 months time, you'll be chowing down on a steak with some friends and you'll discover that someone you know is vegetarian. Somebody else will criticise the vegetarian position using the exact same arguments you've used against my position here. But, here's the thing: you'll know the flaws in those arguments. And they might start to annoy you just a little because they stem from a lack of knowledge. Before you know it, you'll be siding with the vegetarians. And then, sooner or later, you'll start evaluating your own behaviour in light of what you know to be true.
There is no "meant to". That's a fallacy.
But if you stop eating at least some meat - dolphin or whale or monkey or whatever - that's better than nothing. It's not an easy progression to vegetarianism, but small steps are good steps.
I might like the taste of a big juicy steak as much as the next person. But that doesn't affect in the least bit whether or not it is right for me to eat it or not. Sometimes, doing the right thing means sacrificing something.
Why do you feel the need to trumpet your immorality? Do you think I'll be shocked? Or do you think you'll score some points with other meat eaters ("Ha! That showed that egotistical James R guy! Rub his face in the meat!")?
Never say never! I doubt I'll convince you now. But in 6 months time, you'll be chowing down on a steak with some friends and you'll discover that someone you know is vegetarian. Somebody else will criticise the vegetarian position using the exact same arguments you've used against my position here. But, here's the thing: you'll know the flaws in those arguments. And they might start to annoy you just a little because they stem from a lack of knowledge. Before you know it, you'll be siding with the vegetarians. And then, sooner or later, you'll start evaluating your own behaviour in light of what you know to be true.
There is no "meant to". That's a fallacy.
But if you stop eating at least some meat - dolphin or whale or monkey or whatever - that's better than nothing. It's not an easy progression to vegetarianism, but small steps are good steps.
I might like the taste of a big juicy steak as much as the next person. But that doesn't affect in the least bit whether or not it is right for me to eat it or not. Sometimes, doing the right thing means sacrificing something.
Why do you feel the need to trumpet your immorality? Do you think I'll be shocked? Or do you think you'll score some points with other meat eaters ("Ha! That showed that egotistical James R guy! Rub his face in the meat!")?
Actually, all that talk about meat just made me hungry.James R said:
PS You sound like invader Zim {"The meat, the horrible meat...."}.
Hapsburg said:
God brings order, without God there is no order.
wsionynw said:
I never called us carnivores, but we arent vegetarians either. I agree with the morality of being vegetarian, I don't eat redmeat myself, I eat mainly fish, but it's also extremely difficult to get protien as a vegetarian, and different people need different amounts of different nutrients as eating habits and health are very individualized. A vegetarian diet can make some people sick as some people are designed to eat more protien than others. I think women usually do best on the vegetarian diets because their bodies are smaller, men on the other hand may lose a lot of muscle, and despite what you say, most men don't like the idea of being weak and feminized.
Soy for example, has been proven to raise estrogen levels in men. This is not good for the male hormone balance. This might be good for females, but like I said until we find complete protiens to replace meat, we still need a source of fat and protien, right now fish is the best source and the most ethical source because fish are not mammals.
One activity in specific that I disagree with, is capturing wild cats and dogs from the streets and putting them to sleep. Can anyone explain why we do this wasteful process? We don't eat the animals, we just kill them. It's one thing if an animal is sick, but I think it is unethical to put animals to sleep that are healthy.
Morality is not completely subjective as, right and wrong is based on the harm principle. JS. Mill displays the harm principle, and it was the basis for a lot of the laws in this country. Wiccan's also believe in limiting harm, so in order to be morally right, you want to limit harm.
The meat industry is extremely harmful, maybe even evil, and the food industry is also very harmful and perhaps evil. However, we all have to eat, and until vegetarians have supermarkets, what are we supposed to eat? I'd willingly go vegetarian tomorrow, but vegetarian food is not healthier, it has pesticides. If you want to influence a person like me, you have to come at me both rationally (it's healthy for me), and ethically (it's least harmful).
Vegetarians have won me over morally, but I'm too rational to believe it's healthier because it's not. Vegetarians, if you want to win support from me, focus on food and water security.
This is the pesticide network http://www.panna.org/ anyone who cares about their long term health should read it. Pesticides are the cause of the number one killer, cancer, and it causes many other unpredictable illnesses. Pesticides lower sperm count, reduce fertility, cause abortions, destroy DNA, all sorts of unpredictable reactions that I don't have enough knowledge to explain in detail but they are very very bad.
I'm going to start a thread on food security, I invite all of you to post on it.