Is eating meat morally wrong

[ashura]

I didn't miss your question Ash I ignored it but as you are so insistent. I am not opposed to eating meat per se. Did I state that I was? Factory farm practices are bad on many levels and they are certainly not healthy for any of the animals involved particularly the human variety! Meat should be eaten in small quantities no more than a couple of times a week..

Having said that, i haven't eaten meat for over 15 years and i doubt i could go back to it now.

And no Orleander i don't say that cos PETA told me to.

Well then you're actually in agreement with Orleander and I regarding factory farm cruelty. Neither of us like what they do.

I'm interested in your statement regarding eating only a small amount of meat however. Bodybuilders and athletes eat plenty of meat as part of their diet to maintain protein intake and the ones who do it properly tend to be extremely healthy and in shape. Meat has been shown to be very beneficial to their diet, not detrimental as you suggest it might be in those quantities.

 

[MacGyver1968]

I guess sniffy is ignoring my question too.

edit: oops nevermind.

 

[sniffy]

Well those who work with cancer over here say meat = bad.

Maguyver. Bull without out balls yes we have a name for them but I can't for the life of me think what it is!!! My brain is melting! (what brain?).

 

[sniffy]

Well then you're actually in agreement with Orleander and I regarding factory farm cruelty. Neither of us like what they do.

I'm interested in your statement regarding eating only a small amount of meat however. Bodybuilders and athletes eat plenty of meat as part of their diet to maintain protein intake and the ones who do it properly tend to be extremely healthy and in shape. Meat has been shown to be very beneficial to their diet, not detrimental as you suggest it might be in those quantities.

ash - anabolic steroids to you!

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

Oh, come on, dude. You know that's just ridiculous.

Yes. I was highlighting the ridiculousness of the statement I was responding to.

I admit, this is one thing about you that I just don't understand. The idea of reducing the species' capabilities within nature, and all for mere aesthetics, just doesn't make sense.

We've already covered this earlier in the thread. My argument is not based on asthetics.


ashura:

You tell me why it is immoral. The default position is that it's not immoral.

Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts earlier in the thread. Then get back to me. I don't see why I should repeat myself just for your benefit.

I have also added some material to the encylopedia. For example, you might want to start here:

[enc]Equal consideration[/enc]

Please don't twist my words. I never said suffering is good, I said suffering is a necessary component of life and can never be fully erased. It can only be minimized.

And yet you are not doing your best to minimise it.

You seem to be confused. I never said I had an issue with killing animals for food. My issue was with the treatment of animals, and the cruelty many factory farms deliver.

Extend your reasoning to human beings. You would argue that slaughtering a human being is not immoral as long as it is done "humanely". Correct? Or do you think there's an important difference between human beings and other animals?

You seem to be against killing animals for food based on the fact that they're sentient. But since when is sentience a grounds for equal treatment?

See the link above.

Just because we don't kill or eat humans, we shouldn't kill or eat animals?

It would be hypocritical to accord special treatment to humans, would it not?

If you had to save the lives of a dog and a human, ideally you'd save both; but if you had to choose, chances are you'd pick the human.

And this is relevant... how?

In choosing not to eat meat, I can save both the human and the cow.

I mean, how far are you willing to go with the concept of sentience deserving human treatment? Where do you draw the line and why do you choose to draw it there? Seeing as how we're against slavery for humans, should we let animals run free too?

I think that ideally we ought to move to a system of guardianship of animals rather than ownership. You cannot own another human being, so why can you own a cow?


Orleander:

so if a bear eats me, that's not immoral, but if I eat the bear, it is.
If I eat for survival, its not immoral, but if I eat for pleasure it is.

Rules....Sounds a lot like religion to me.

If so, surely it is superior to "Do what I want, even if it hurts other sentient beings." Don't you think?


MacGyver1968:

I love animals....they're delicious.

Another person apparently unequipped to discuss the issue. Instead, he chooses to flaunt his immorality.

 

[Tiassa]

We've already covered this earlier in the thread. My argument is not based on asthetics.

We've already covered this earlier in the thread. Yes, it is.

 

[ashura]

Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts earlier in the thread. Then get back to me. I don't see why I should repeat myself just for your benefit.

You're right. Before I try and discuss the immorality of the issue, I'll take the time to read through the entire thread. My next reply to you will be a little late because of this. However, let me address the specific points you brought up against me in this post:

Extend your reasoning to human beings. You would argue that slaughtering a human being is not immoral as long as it is done "humanely". Correct? Or do you think there's an important difference between human beings and other animals?

It would be hypocritical to accord special treatment to humans, would it not?

Correct to the latter question in the first quote, I do place more importance on human beings and give them preference over other animals. It would only be hypocritical of me if I believed in and promoted equality for humans and animals. I don't.

If you had to save the lives of a dog and a human, ideally you'd save both; but if you had to choose, chances are you'd pick the human.

And this is relevant... how?

It's very relevant because if you had to choose, you'd end up giving preference to the human.

I think that ideally we ought to move to a system of guardianship of animals rather than ownership. You cannot own another human being, so why can you own a cow?

You're still imposing your superiority as a human over the animal with a "guardianship" system. If you place humans and animals on equal footing like you suggested in the other part of your post, why even have a such a system? Why not let them all run free and simply arrest any human that interferes?

 

[James R]

ashura:

You're right. Before I try and discuss the immorality of the issue, I'll take the time to read through the entire thread. My next reply to you will be a little late because of this.

No worries. This thread was only recently resurrected after a long gap, anyway. I'm in no rush.

Correct to the latter question in the first quote, I do place more importance on human beings and give them preference over other animals. It would only be hypocritical of me if I believed in and promoted equality for humans and animals. I don't.

What makes human beings different from other animals then, in terms of the right not to be eaten or taken as the property of another person?

It's very relevant because if you had to choose, you'd end up giving preference to the human.

You seem to have ignored the second part of my response above. In choosing not to eat meat, you're not preferencing the cow over the human. You're refusing to eat either of them.

Nothing forces you to do evil against the animal. That's a choice you make. It's not your mother or the cow. You can save both.

You're still imposing your superiority as a human over the animal with a "guardianship" system. If you place humans and animals on equal footing like you suggested in the other part of your post, why even have a such a system? Why not let them all run free and simply arrest any human that interferes?

Compare human children. Do you think that young children should be left to run free? And yet, you also don't regard them as property to do with as you please, I assume.

 

[MacGyver1968]

MacGyver1968:

Another person apparently unequipped to discuss the issue. Instead, he chooses to flaunt his immorality.

Immorality? In who's eyes? Yours? Last time I checked I have canine teeth...and so do you. What are canine teeth for? That would be tearing flesh. Has nature or God given me these teeth just to eat plants?

If I'm immoral for eating meat, then so are bears, lions or any other carnivore or omnivore. Are they immoral in your eyes James?

You're right, I generally do not engage in "serious" discussions on this board, and choose to joke around most of the time...mainly because of people like you who are intolerant of the choices and ideas of others.

 

[James R]

MacGyver1968:

You're another one who hasn't bothered reading the entire thread. Go and read it, before you put arguments I've already dealt with.

Immorality? In who's eyes? Yours? Last time I checked I have canine teeth...and so do you. What are canine teeth for? That would be tearing flesh. Has nature or God given me these teeth just to eat plants?

As you would have seen if you'd read just a few earlier posts, being able to do something does not imply that it is moral to do it. You can rape or murder if you choose, but that doesn't mean you should. Similarly, you can eat meat, but that doesn't mean you should.

If I'm immoral for eating meat, then so are bears, lions or any other carnivore or omnivore. Are they immoral in your eyes James?

Are they capable of moral reasoning in your eyes?

If not, your question makes no sense. If you think they are, then we can discuss the matter further. So...?

You're right, I generally do not engage in "serious" discussions on this board, and choose to joke around most of the time...mainly because of people like you who are intolerant of the choices and ideas of others.

This is a bit rich, coming from somebody who felt it necessary to "stick it to the vegetarians" in his first post to this thread.

 

[MacGyver1968]

No, James I don't believe animals have the ability for moral reasoning,(maybe in higher apes) nor do I believe humans be judged as immoral for engaging in behavior (eating meat) that we are built to engage in. If you choose to abstain from eating meat, then that is your choice, but don't judge others who believe differently. (most of the world)

I also did not "stick it to the vegetarians" as you said, I merely stated my belief on this matter in a humorous manner. If it offended you, then I apologize.

As for you chastising me and others for not reading the entire thread...If you didn't notice, this thread is 37 pages long. Do you really expect everyone to read every post in a thread THIS long before posting?

 

[ranthi]

MacGyver1968:

You're another one who hasn't bothered reading the entire thread. Go and read it, before you put arguments I've already dealt with.



As you would have seen if you'd read just a few earlier posts, being able to do something does not imply that it is moral to do it. You can rape or murder if you choose, but that doesn't mean you should. Similarly, you can eat meat, but that doesn't mean you should.



Are they capable of moral reasoning in your eyes?

If not, your question makes no sense. If you think they are, then we can discuss the matter further. So...?



This is a bit rich, coming from somebody who felt it necessary to "stick it to the vegetarians" in his first post to this thread.

Here is a question. Is there any meat a bear wont eat? I saw a special once on dinosaurs...particularly the T-Rex. It ate pretty much dinosaurs of ALL kinds...except its own. When all of the dinos started dying out they were finally pushed, due to hunger, to the point of eating their own kind.

So...to me...the only meat immoral to eat is the meat of your own species. I cannot think of any meat eating animal where this does not hold true. Because most animals lower on the food chain than us are instinct driven, how can 30,000 species be wrong?

Here is the point I guess. To me, Its not really a point of whether we should or shouldnt. We can, and in moderation with the proper preparation...meat is as healthly for you as a carrot, but the question of whether we should or not is really irrelevant. We do and we will continue to. Meat like pasta is a source of energy and nutrition that over the years, very few have grown a distaste for. Now Im not saying that you SHOULD eat it...as with most things, it is your choice but someone preferring vegie's over meat is like me preferring well..well...well, etc done meat over that bloody (which is VERY unhealthy) type.

 

[ranthi]

No, James I don't believe animals have the ability for moral reasoning,(maybe in higher apes) nor do I believe humans be judged as immoral for engaging in behavior (eating meat) that we are built to engage in. If you choose to abstain from eating meat, then that is your choice, but don't judge others who believe differently. (most of the world)

I also did not "stick it to the vegetarians" as you said, I merely stated my belief on this matter in a humorous manner. If it offended you, then I apologize.

As for you chastising me and others for not reading the entire thread...If you didn't notice, this thread is 37 pages long. Do you really expect everyone to read every post in a thread THIS long before posting?

I know it takes forever sometimes for a page to load on my connection sometimes so I usually skip to the end. So far, I havent been unlucky enough to cause thread death because of it. If I had a quicker connection I might speed read a couple pages, but not with this crap I currently have.

 

[peta9]

if we're talking ethics, then eating meat would be unethical if you believe murder is wrong. Whether we live in a universe that is predatorial does not make it ethical. It just is but when you have the power of choice and you don't take action to minimize at least the moral wrongs you are aware of, then of course, that's unethical. You can still do what you want to do but that doesn't make it ethical either. That's a personal choice we make everyday in regard to what we are to willing to do, sacrifice and not do.

 

[James R]

MacGyver1968:

No, James I don't believe animals have the ability for moral reasoning,(maybe in higher apes) nor do I believe humans be judged as immoral for engaging in behavior (eating meat) that we are built to engage in.

If you do not believe non-human animals can reason morally, then your question about holding animals to same moral standards as humans was just an attempt to divert from the issue. So, let's leave that aside.

Moving on to your claim that humans ought not to be judged immoral for engaging in behaviour that "comes naturally" to them, be aware that this is an example of the [enc]Appeal to nature[/enc] logical fallacy. As such, it does not provide a moral justification for eating meat.

If you choose to abstain from eating meat, then that is your choice, but don't judge others who believe differently. (most of the world)

Why? Because the majority is always right, or because being judged morally deficient makes you feel guilty?

I also did not "stick it to the vegetarians" as you said, I merely stated my belief on this matter in a humorous manner. If it offended you, then I apologize.

It's ok. It's just that I've already seen a lot of people jump into this thread with exactly the same kind of quip, even exactly the same one. It's as if they think that saying how much they love eating meat somehow makes it right. It shows an unwillingness even to consider the moral issue.

As for you chastising me and others for not reading the entire thread...If you didn't notice, this thread is 37 pages long. Do you really expect everyone to read every post in a thread THIS long before posting?

You can just search for my posts in the thread, if you want a shortcut.


ranthi:

Here is a question. Is there any meat a bear wont eat? I saw a special once on dinosaurs...particularly the T-Rex. It ate pretty much dinosaurs of ALL kinds...except its own. When all of the dinos started dying out they were finally pushed, due to hunger, to the point of eating their own kind.

So...to me...the only meat immoral to eat is the meat of your own species.

So every species has a different measure of morality, then.

I can't think of any other moral issue that works that way. Can you?

Anyway, how about you tell me what is morally wrong with eating human beings, then. It must be more than just a random rule like "Don't eat your own species." It must be based on something.

Here is the point I guess. To me, Its not really a point of whether we should or shouldnt.

But that's precisely the question in the thread.

The fact that, in the normal course of your life you, along with a lot of other people, don't even want to think about the moral issue doesn't mean it isn't there. It doesn't go away just because you ignore it.

It's as if you went around randomly murdering people, then said "To me, it's not really a question of whether I should or shouldn't. Some people murder; other people choose not to. Either way is fine."

 

[draqon]

James R. ... I posed this question earlier, perhaps you missed it...what will eskimos eat than?

 

[James R]

dragon:

Do eskimos have a choice of what they eat? If they do not eat meat, will they die?

 

[draqon]

dragon:

Do eskimos have a choice of what they eat? If they do not eat meat, will they die?

they don't have a choice...they will die.

 

[lightgigantic]

they don't have a choice...they will die.

without choices there is no discussion of morals

 

[draqon]

without choices there is no discussion of morals

So Hitler's Germany was moral, than?

or do you not count death as a choice?