Is eating meat morally wrong
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
Ah, I should've known better. Once James R run out of trite, overused retorts, he simply withdraws. While pretending to be dignified and victorious, of course, but still, a retreat. Anyhow, the nature of his pathology having been demonstrated, and a template for overcoming it exhibited, it seems that my work is done here...
quadraphonics:
I thought my previous response appropriate just before, but having taken a little time to reflect I think I need to respond in more detail to your last post, since I doubt you will take the point unless I spell it out in detail for you.
(edit to add: I've just seen your post directly above this one. Just in case you get the wrong idea, I was composing this post at the time your posted yours.)
What makes me think you missed those points is that you claim that choice of diet has no moral implications.
If you had been aware of those arguments before, clearly you didn't understand them, or at the very least you didn't agree with them. But, if you didn't agree with them and you had a rational basis for your disagreement, you would have had no trouble producing a counter-argument in this thread. Your inability to do so indicates that either the point did not hit home with you, or that you didn't really understand it, or that you disagree on personal grounds - a kind of double-think in which you get to preserve your own self-perception that you are a moral person while at the same time being intellectually aware that your position is logically unsustainable.
Just to save you the time, don't bother responding to this with something along the lines of "I won't reply, because you want me to reply, and I petulantly refuse to give you want you want." I can already see past that.
No. Founded on your own prior statement. You wrote:
In other words, you do not think that what people eat is a moral issue, or, at the very least, it is not a moral issue for you.
Since few thinking people would deny the moral implications of the issue, my conclusion is that you have not thought it through. I admit that it may not be due to incapacity, though. Perhaps it's just unwillingness to face facts. Which is interesting in itself, wouldn't you agree?
For the record, I don't. Either they are or they aren't. It is a pleasant surprise when they aren't, I assure you. It makes for a much more interesting discussion.
You're a bright guy. You've already judged yourself intellectually superior to me. So, what are you worried about?
I'm sure you've applied some kind of reasoning. From what I can see, it has been very superficial. Nothing you have written suggests otherwise.
I don't know where you get that impression. As it happens, some people are stupid, evil and/or lazy. But mere disagreement with me doesn't make them that way. Maybe it's innate. Maybe they choose those things for themselves.
I enjoy penis waving as much as the next man, to an extent. But I tend to lose interest quite quickly. It just becomes boring, and no progress tends to be made after the initial clash for dominant male status.
More importantly, in a thread such as the current one it tends to get in the way of the intellectual discussion. For example, look at how much space you've wasted trying to establish that you're a bigger man than me.
That depends on how much entertainment they get out of a "whose penis is bigger" battle, doesn't it?
More importantly, do you really think that any third party is going to rate your entree into this thread and your subsequent contributions, such as they have been so far, as a worthwhile contribution?
I won't ban you unless you breach the forum posting guidelines. I promise.
If it ever comes to that, I undertake here to discuss that step with all the other moderators before taking action.
But I'm fairly confident it won't come to that, as long as you're able to keep the personal separate from the intellectual.
I thought my previous response appropriate just before, but having taken a little time to reflect I think I need to respond in more detail to your last post, since I doubt you will take the point unless I spell it out in detail for you.
(edit to add: I've just seen your post directly above this one. Just in case you get the wrong idea, I was composing this post at the time your posted yours.)
What makes me think you missed those points is that you claim that choice of diet has no moral implications.
If you had been aware of those arguments before, clearly you didn't understand them, or at the very least you didn't agree with them. But, if you didn't agree with them and you had a rational basis for your disagreement, you would have had no trouble producing a counter-argument in this thread. Your inability to do so indicates that either the point did not hit home with you, or that you didn't really understand it, or that you disagree on personal grounds - a kind of double-think in which you get to preserve your own self-perception that you are a moral person while at the same time being intellectually aware that your position is logically unsustainable.
Just to save you the time, don't bother responding to this with something along the lines of "I won't reply, because you want me to reply, and I petulantly refuse to give you want you want." I can already see past that.
No. Founded on your own prior statement. You wrote:
quadraphonics said:
In other words, you do not think that what people eat is a moral issue, or, at the very least, it is not a moral issue for you.
Since few thinking people would deny the moral implications of the issue, my conclusion is that you have not thought it through. I admit that it may not be due to incapacity, though. Perhaps it's just unwillingness to face facts. Which is interesting in itself, wouldn't you agree?
For the record, I don't. Either they are or they aren't. It is a pleasant surprise when they aren't, I assure you. It makes for a much more interesting discussion.
You're a bright guy. You've already judged yourself intellectually superior to me. So, what are you worried about?
I'm sure you've applied some kind of reasoning. From what I can see, it has been very superficial. Nothing you have written suggests otherwise.
I don't know where you get that impression. As it happens, some people are stupid, evil and/or lazy. But mere disagreement with me doesn't make them that way. Maybe it's innate. Maybe they choose those things for themselves.
I enjoy penis waving as much as the next man, to an extent. But I tend to lose interest quite quickly. It just becomes boring, and no progress tends to be made after the initial clash for dominant male status.
More importantly, in a thread such as the current one it tends to get in the way of the intellectual discussion. For example, look at how much space you've wasted trying to establish that you're a bigger man than me.
That depends on how much entertainment they get out of a "whose penis is bigger" battle, doesn't it?
More importantly, do you really think that any third party is going to rate your entree into this thread and your subsequent contributions, such as they have been so far, as a worthwhile contribution?
I won't ban you unless you breach the forum posting guidelines. I promise.
If it ever comes to that, I undertake here to discuss that step with all the other moderators before taking action.
But I'm fairly confident it won't come to that, as long as you're able to keep the personal separate from the intellectual.
The fallacy in this line of thinking is the assumption that I'm interested in presenting an argument on the topic of dietary morals. Such a supposition is required to make the leap from a lack of argument to an inability to argue. However, I was quite explicit in declaring my disinterest in this up front. That you would ignore this, and instead pursue personal aspersions based on a contradictory assumption, is yet another salient illustration of my points.
Again, I was quite explicit about this: it's that *I* view said debate as inherently pointless (and, anyway, exhausted), and your pursuit of it as ulteriorly motivated. Thwarting you is indeed part of my game plan, but it's not motivated by mere petulance. But, hey, don't let that stop you from calling me names.
Rather, let the facts that it has no effect on me and costs you the respect of everyone else stop you from calling me names.
Not "what people eat," but "what others eat." Although perhaps a better phrasing would be "what any particular individual eats." Certainly, it's critical that people as a whole do not eat their way out of a habitat. But whether an individual eats meat or not? That's a purely personal issue.
False premise. A very sizeable percentage of thinking people see no salient moral issue in other people's diets. They're usually referred to as "people past their freshman year of college."
The state of discourse on these fora, obviously.
Nice try. However, I thought I'd been very clear that I feel no need to justify my dietary choices to you or anyone else. Getting others to accept that premise is crucial to empowering your moral superiority game, and we see how ugly you become when people refuse to play. You attempt to browbeat and otherwise insult them into empowering you to evaluate them.
But, hey, don't stop now. There might still be one or two readers who aren't convinced of my point yet...
From the frequency with which you unduly employ charges of laziness, stupidity or immorality, obviously. It's one of the things I picked up while reading the entirety of this thread before I began posting. Indeed, it's one of the things that motivated my response.
Indeed. I seem to recall my entire point having something to do with objecting to your degeneration into name-calling and assertions of superiority.
It's not a waste in my book. Of course, a big part of the reason for this is exactly that it IS a waste in your book, but, hey...
To say it another way: look how much space you've wasted trying to establish that I'm not a bigger man than you. The wise course would have been to ignore me; what power would I have had then? But your ego would never stand for that, and besides, there'd be no chance to assert your dietary supremacy.
As it happens, I've already received PMs from third parties expressing gratitude for my contributions in this thread. I'm quite serious about the primacy of non-participating readers in the evaluation of online debate/conversation/whatever. It's a difficult proposition to employ, as it's so rare that you get any feedback, but there's just no getting around it. That lurkers are watching and evaluating is the first thing people forget when they start arguing; they become fixated on the impossible goal of converting the other side to their position, and forget that "winning" can only be defined as impressing the lurkers.
It's particularly important for mods to keep in mind, lest they debase the standard of discourse in the pursuit of cheap egotism.
quadraphonics:
Excuse me if I skip to the more interesting parts of your post and ignore some of the personal bullshit.
Do you regard all moral actions that impact other sentient beings as "purely personal"? If not, please give an example or two of such individual choices that you believe are morally relevant, and explain the difference you see when it comes to animal rights.
Interesting that you felt the need to jab in the knife again rather than to support this point with logical reasoning. Because, as I'm sure you realise, there's an important difference between "thinking people" in general and those who think about this particular issue.
I have already made the point a number of times in this thread that most meat eaters never give any serious thought to the morality of their eating habits. You're just one more who doesn't, and you rationalise that to yourself by saying it is because you're not a "freshman" in college.
Interesting also that you deride people who are starting tertiary study. Does that make you feel big, too?
I can only urge you again to consider the thread topic: Is eating meat morally wrong?
If you are unwilling or unable to discuss the topic, the easy solution is to stay out of the thread.
You're happy eating meat. You claim you don't feel the need to defend yourself. And yet you felt the need to jump into the thread crowing about your meat eating. Hmmm...
You didn't read the thread closely enough. I have reacted to a number of people who chose to post in this thread only to flaunt their meat eating, rather than to participate in the on-topic discussion - yourself included. Such a response serves to highlight the actions of such posters. Of course, people get defensive when they find they have to actually try to defend their views or else look stupid.
It's always good to have a cheer squad, but I'm not sure what it says that your cheer squad is unwilling to cheer for you in public. I am really that intimidating?
You're right on this point. It's one I've made many times on the forum myself. I'm glad we agree on something.
Do you feel you're impressing the lurkers?
Excuse me if I skip to the more interesting parts of your post and ignore some of the personal bullshit.
Do you regard all moral actions that impact other sentient beings as "purely personal"? If not, please give an example or two of such individual choices that you believe are morally relevant, and explain the difference you see when it comes to animal rights.
Interesting that you felt the need to jab in the knife again rather than to support this point with logical reasoning. Because, as I'm sure you realise, there's an important difference between "thinking people" in general and those who think about this particular issue.
I have already made the point a number of times in this thread that most meat eaters never give any serious thought to the morality of their eating habits. You're just one more who doesn't, and you rationalise that to yourself by saying it is because you're not a "freshman" in college.
Interesting also that you deride people who are starting tertiary study. Does that make you feel big, too?
I can only urge you again to consider the thread topic: Is eating meat morally wrong?
If you are unwilling or unable to discuss the topic, the easy solution is to stay out of the thread.
You're happy eating meat. You claim you don't feel the need to defend yourself. And yet you felt the need to jump into the thread crowing about your meat eating. Hmmm...
You didn't read the thread closely enough. I have reacted to a number of people who chose to post in this thread only to flaunt their meat eating, rather than to participate in the on-topic discussion - yourself included. Such a response serves to highlight the actions of such posters. Of course, people get defensive when they find they have to actually try to defend their views or else look stupid.
It's always good to have a cheer squad, but I'm not sure what it says that your cheer squad is unwilling to cheer for you in public. I am really that intimidating?
You're right on this point. It's one I've made many times on the forum myself. I'm glad we agree on something.
Do you feel you're impressing the lurkers?
I dont see meat eating as morally wrong, and neither does about 90% of the population of the US. You are just taking an extreme view on a very non extreme issue for most people. What your doing is no different then what hardline conservatives do, preaching a view that only appeals to a very small minority and acting like its some huge moral issue. Well it may be to you, but its really not to most people, does that make you better or just naive?
shichimenshyo:
The thing is, though, questions of morality are supposed to be decidable by logical argument, rather than by mob rule.
Thus, we ought to be able to discuss whether eating meat is morally wrong or right based on moral principles, and not just poll results.
You're not telling me anything I don't know by saying that the question doesn't bother a lot of people. All you've established is that 90% of the population of the US (if your figure is accurate) either can't or won't justify their actions with reference to moral principles. They are happy to go right on doing what they are doing, regardless of whether they are in fact acting morally or immorally.
Another thing I always find strange is that when this question comes up suddenly every meat eater is a moral relativist. Meat eating may be wrong for you, they say, but it isn't wrong for me. So, leave me to eat my steak.
Yet I doubt whether all those meat eaters take the same relativist line when it comes to other moral issues. For example, I don't see your average meat eater saying "abortion is wrong for me, but if its right for you that's fine" or "I'm pro-choice on abortion, but if people want to be pro-life that's just fine. It's right for them." Or consider gay marriage. Or euthanasia. Or stem cell research. A whole heap of people have strong opinions on such matters, but when it comes to eating meat, suddenly it's every person for themselves and there's no absolute right or wrong any more.
The question is: is the relativism of the meat eater a real, honest, consistent position, or is it just a convenient stance to avoid having to face an uncomfortable truth?
One final point: quadraphonics made the mistake earlier (and he's not the first one) to think that I started this thread to show I am better than other people. I didn't. I already know that vegetarianism is the morally superior position - unless somebody can show otherwise by a logical argument I haven't come across before.
I started this thread to try to jar a few meat eaters out of their complacency, and also to see if they can justify their actions in a logically consistent way. I don't believe they can, but I'm very open to having the discussion.
The thing is, though, questions of morality are supposed to be decidable by logical argument, rather than by mob rule.
Thus, we ought to be able to discuss whether eating meat is morally wrong or right based on moral principles, and not just poll results.
You're not telling me anything I don't know by saying that the question doesn't bother a lot of people. All you've established is that 90% of the population of the US (if your figure is accurate) either can't or won't justify their actions with reference to moral principles. They are happy to go right on doing what they are doing, regardless of whether they are in fact acting morally or immorally.
Another thing I always find strange is that when this question comes up suddenly every meat eater is a moral relativist. Meat eating may be wrong for you, they say, but it isn't wrong for me. So, leave me to eat my steak.
Yet I doubt whether all those meat eaters take the same relativist line when it comes to other moral issues. For example, I don't see your average meat eater saying "abortion is wrong for me, but if its right for you that's fine" or "I'm pro-choice on abortion, but if people want to be pro-life that's just fine. It's right for them." Or consider gay marriage. Or euthanasia. Or stem cell research. A whole heap of people have strong opinions on such matters, but when it comes to eating meat, suddenly it's every person for themselves and there's no absolute right or wrong any more.
The question is: is the relativism of the meat eater a real, honest, consistent position, or is it just a convenient stance to avoid having to face an uncomfortable truth?
One final point: quadraphonics made the mistake earlier (and he's not the first one) to think that I started this thread to show I am better than other people. I didn't. I already know that vegetarianism is the morally superior position - unless somebody can show otherwise by a logical argument I haven't come across before.
I started this thread to try to jar a few meat eaters out of their complacency, and also to see if they can justify their actions in a logically consistent way. I don't believe they can, but I'm very open to having the discussion.
phoenix2634
Registered Senior Member
I thought ToR started this thread. :shrug: At least that's what the first post tells me.
Seriously, after having spent the last four hours reading through this thread and two others you linked to early on in this one, I just wanted to ask you a question to see if I'm understanding what the basic argument is.
Is this primarily a question of the principle of equal consideration versus speciesism?
Zealotry ain't a good color on you, James
You don't actually seem to care what people say. You cling to your position like any number of our religious zealots. You're willing to reduce the capabilities of the human species in order to feel better about yourself. As you simply dismiss every argument you encounter as being fallacious, what good any new expression do?
No, you're not. I took some time to read through the old discussion today, and I'm still perplexed by your refusal to stand for your own arguments. Normally, you and I would agree on the idea that one who dissociates themselves from the logical outcome of the principles they advocate is erroneous. For some reason, you suspend that notion when it comes to this subject. In this topic you've demanded moral parity between humans and other species, but then denied that you've done so. You've split hairs according to mere aesthetics and demanded that your moral outlook is justification for reducing the capabilities of the species. You cannot hide behind the fact that you've never explicitly stated those words. You cannot avoid the logical conclusion that if humanity does what you consider the moral thing, we will be reducing the spectrum of resources compatible with our survival. It would be like me saying that all people who assert moral justifications for vegetarianism should be institutionalized, and then trying to pretend I didn't call you crazy because I never explicitly named you. You cannot dissociate yourself from the consequences of what you advocate.
I really don't get why this one is so important to you that you've melted into zealotry, but as you've demonstrated, the only discussion you're open to having on this subject is to remind human omnivores that they are immoral people akin to child rapists.
James R said:
You don't actually seem to care what people say. You cling to your position like any number of our religious zealots. You're willing to reduce the capabilities of the human species in order to feel better about yourself. As you simply dismiss every argument you encounter as being fallacious, what good any new expression do?
No, you're not. I took some time to read through the old discussion today, and I'm still perplexed by your refusal to stand for your own arguments. Normally, you and I would agree on the idea that one who dissociates themselves from the logical outcome of the principles they advocate is erroneous. For some reason, you suspend that notion when it comes to this subject. In this topic you've demanded moral parity between humans and other species, but then denied that you've done so. You've split hairs according to mere aesthetics and demanded that your moral outlook is justification for reducing the capabilities of the species. You cannot hide behind the fact that you've never explicitly stated those words. You cannot avoid the logical conclusion that if humanity does what you consider the moral thing, we will be reducing the spectrum of resources compatible with our survival. It would be like me saying that all people who assert moral justifications for vegetarianism should be institutionalized, and then trying to pretend I didn't call you crazy because I never explicitly named you. You cannot dissociate yourself from the consequences of what you advocate.
I really don't get why this one is so important to you that you've melted into zealotry, but as you've demonstrated, the only discussion you're open to having on this subject is to remind human omnivores that they are immoral people akin to child rapists.
Bells
Staff member
Can I ask one question.
Why do you feel we need to justify our "actions"?
Our bodies need the protein and the iron that the meat provides. It helped us evolve to where we are today. Without meat in the human diet, I doubt the human species could have reached the stage of evolution and development we have reached.
Meat is essential to our physiological development. That is why I feed it to my children. You want a moral justification? That is it right there. I can either ply my children with vitamins and pills to ensure they receive the minerals (especially iron) and proteins or I can feed them meat. I choose the latter. You might feel morally justified in being a vegetarian. And that is wonderful for you. But I feel equally morally justified in the fact that I eat meat and feed it to my children to ensure they receive a balanced diet that is essential for their development.
there are cultures that have been vegetarian for literally thousands of years - all without vitamin pills - the only people I know who got health problems from becoming vegetarian are people who don't know how to cook. And I don't know what is the exact ratio of diseases caused by overfeeding as opposed to underfeeding in the west - but needless to say, your major cause of concern for your child's development these days tends to be obesity
as for the biological argument - given that we have bare hands and teeth that won't fare to well on the african savannah , a mandible jaw just perfect for grinding, and an intestine maybe 4 times too long to be habitually fed dead carcasses, its not clear why some argument about what was apparently happening 4 million years ago is relevant now ....
Bells
Staff member
Vegans can also become obese. I can assure you, I do not slaughter a cow and have my children gnaw on it for their meat intake.
I am well aware there are many cultures who lead a strict vegan lifestyle. They have adapted themselves well to such a diet. And all well and good for them. I do not force my dietary practices on them and I do not expect they do the same to me. Vegan diets have to be very balanced and supplemented to ensure the body receives the vitamins and minerals it needs for survival. Pregnant and lactating women especially, have to be very careful as they could very well harm themselves and their baby by following a strict vegan diet. Children are also at risk, as their bodies need the proteins, fat, vitamins and minerals found in animal products. Now, as a parent, should I deprive my children of these essential dietary elements? The answer to that is no.
We evolved eating meat. Just because we now have a recognition that killing a sentient being is wrong, does not mean that we should also starve our bodies of the essential nutrients it needs to survive and develop. As I said, I could deprive my children of any meat or animal products and try like hell to make sure they eat all the vegetables and fruits necessary to provide them with the nutrients they need for their development. I would then also have to have their blood tested on a regular basis to make sure the balance was correct and exact.
I don't know about you, but I find the thought of having to make my children be tested in such a fashion on a regular basis unappealing. And children, being picky eaters that they are, will not eat all the fruits and vegetables, in the quantities necessary, to ensure they receive the nutrients necessary for their development. So I select the easy and safe option. I would not want to take the risk and play the game with my children's development and wellbeing. Strange, I know, but that's just how it is.
It is very relevant. Vegan diets can be dangerous for babies, toddlers and teenagers, as well as expectant mothers and women who breastfeed. I don't know about you, but I really would not want to risk my children's development.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html?ex=1337400000&en=3287884b913bd4bc&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
http://kidshealth.org/research/iron_deficiency.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/nutrition_for_everyone/iron_deficiency/
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
phoenix2634:
You're right, of course. I didn't bother checking whether this was one of the threads on this topic that I started, and I should have been more careful. Please read my statement "I started this thread to ..." as "I started in this thread to ..."
I need to review the thread myself. However, if I recall correctly, the main point I have made is that we ought to treat like as like. We do not accept treating other human beings merely as means to our own ends (tools for our pleasure), so it ought not to be acceptable to do so with non-human animals unless some process of reasoning can justify it. Speciesism only becomes relevant when somebody makes the argument that no moral implication attaches to eating an animal (in contrast to a human being) simply because the animal is non-human. Such an argument arbitrarily divides sentient creatures into two classes, one deserving of moral consideration and the other deserving none. It is the arbitrariness of the division that is the problem. The same kind of argument has been used in the past to justify racial segregation, human slavery and other evils.
Bells:
Because a moral human being ought always to be able to justify his or her actions according to some logically defensible moral principle.
The minute you stop thinking you need to justify your actions on moral grounds is when you stop being a full human being and start being a monster.
With respect, you sound like you've been sucked in by the Sam Neill ads the meat industry has been running in Australia.
It may well be true that meat was important in the evolution of the human species. It may well be true that meat was a relevant part of the hunter-gatherer diet, though I suspect the rate of consumption of meat then was nothing like what it is for a meat eater in one of today's western societies. If you're interested, try comparing the meat intake of today's non-industrialised societies. You may be surprised.
But even if we accept that meat consumption was important in the past it does not automatically follow that it is moral for us to continue eating meat in today's world.
One random statistic I read a couple of days ago, of no special consequence: approximately 1/3 of Australia's output of greenhouse gases at the present time comes from livestock farmed for meat. Livestock contributes more greenhouse gases than all the motor vehicles in Australia.
Can you cite a source for that?
I'm not yet convinced that meat is essential to your children's development. I could give you examples of people I know who became vegetarian at a very early age, and they're just fine now.
But, let's assume that what you say is true, again. Then, you have an argument for feeding your children meat. Of course, you could feed them vitamin supplements etc. to the same effect. In that case, the decision as to whether to go with meat or supplements ought to involve a moral balancing act. If you're a utilitarian, for example, you would need to balance up the good of the animals that would die to feed your children against the moderate inconvenience of feeding them supplements. Who knows? Perhaps the supplements really are so difficult that killing hundreds of sentient animals is morally justifiable.
The next question, of course, having established that your children need to eat meat, is whether you personally need to eat meat. You're already developed, so you can't make the argument for yourself that you make for your children. You'll need a different justification for yourself.
I don't have time to reply to your next post yet, but I'll get to it.
tiassa:
I'll need to review the thread before I can reply in detail. As you're aware, this thread has only recently been resurrected, and my memory is a little hazy of the details of our previous discussion.
As I said above, I'm a little short of time now, but I'll get to it.
You're right, of course. I didn't bother checking whether this was one of the threads on this topic that I started, and I should have been more careful. Please read my statement "I started this thread to ..." as "I started in this thread to ..."
I need to review the thread myself. However, if I recall correctly, the main point I have made is that we ought to treat like as like. We do not accept treating other human beings merely as means to our own ends (tools for our pleasure), so it ought not to be acceptable to do so with non-human animals unless some process of reasoning can justify it. Speciesism only becomes relevant when somebody makes the argument that no moral implication attaches to eating an animal (in contrast to a human being) simply because the animal is non-human. Such an argument arbitrarily divides sentient creatures into two classes, one deserving of moral consideration and the other deserving none. It is the arbitrariness of the division that is the problem. The same kind of argument has been used in the past to justify racial segregation, human slavery and other evils.
Bells:
Because a moral human being ought always to be able to justify his or her actions according to some logically defensible moral principle.
The minute you stop thinking you need to justify your actions on moral grounds is when you stop being a full human being and start being a monster.
With respect, you sound like you've been sucked in by the Sam Neill ads the meat industry has been running in Australia.
It may well be true that meat was important in the evolution of the human species. It may well be true that meat was a relevant part of the hunter-gatherer diet, though I suspect the rate of consumption of meat then was nothing like what it is for a meat eater in one of today's western societies. If you're interested, try comparing the meat intake of today's non-industrialised societies. You may be surprised.
But even if we accept that meat consumption was important in the past it does not automatically follow that it is moral for us to continue eating meat in today's world.
One random statistic I read a couple of days ago, of no special consequence: approximately 1/3 of Australia's output of greenhouse gases at the present time comes from livestock farmed for meat. Livestock contributes more greenhouse gases than all the motor vehicles in Australia.
Can you cite a source for that?
I'm not yet convinced that meat is essential to your children's development. I could give you examples of people I know who became vegetarian at a very early age, and they're just fine now.
But, let's assume that what you say is true, again. Then, you have an argument for feeding your children meat. Of course, you could feed them vitamin supplements etc. to the same effect. In that case, the decision as to whether to go with meat or supplements ought to involve a moral balancing act. If you're a utilitarian, for example, you would need to balance up the good of the animals that would die to feed your children against the moderate inconvenience of feeding them supplements. Who knows? Perhaps the supplements really are so difficult that killing hundreds of sentient animals is morally justifiable.
The next question, of course, having established that your children need to eat meat, is whether you personally need to eat meat. You're already developed, so you can't make the argument for yourself that you make for your children. You'll need a different justification for yourself.
I don't have time to reply to your next post yet, but I'll get to it.
tiassa:
I'll need to review the thread before I can reply in detail. As you're aware, this thread has only recently been resurrected, and my memory is a little hazy of the details of our previous discussion.
As I said above, I'm a little short of time now, but I'll get to it.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Why does extremism have to be a bad thing though, you act like its some kind of hideous social faux-pas.
I think people get lost in modern-day rhetoric and tend to forget that much of the social progress we've made has been founded on quite extreme, subversive prinicples, by quite extreme subversive people.
Environmentalists were just 'nutters' in the 70s and 80s, these days i dont know anyone who doesnt try to help sustain the environment in at least some form or another.
Rinse repeat for just about any modern social norm - equal rights, women's rights, gay rights, workers rights etc.
this is sexist and morally wrong. It is decriminatory against men.
You mean like those people that would rather save a chicken from being killed than a human? Or howabout those people that believe they should have the right to marry their pets? Do you stare at the ground constantly to make sure you dont step on an ant or a worm that might just be trying to cross the road after a big rain? Howabout spiders?
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Which people are those, i dont think ive ever heard anyone express such a view.
I dont kill insects, or at least never knowingly do so, does that make me a hardliner mentalist?