Is eating meat morally wrong

[kazakhan]

Man told not to traumatise worms with eco-toilet
My first thoughts were of this thread when I read the link above

 

[lightgigantic]

noy bizare, we breed animals mainly to eat (with the exception of cats, dogs, ) and if we all stop eating meat then the culling of animal will ahve to take place, because it wouldnt be economical to keep them alive

you mean to say that if we didn't eat them like we do, we wouldn't breed them like we do?

 

[lightgigantic]

Man told not to traumatise worms with eco-toilet
My first thoughts were of this thread when I read the link above

My first thoughts were of this thread when I read this

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

what are the arguement s for NOT eating meat?

It an incredibly inefficient way to get protein. It takes much more energy, arable land, time and money to make a pound of meat protein.

Animals that are bred for food are causing untold problems via their waste.

Animal products are much more likely to hold pollutants, toxins, antibiotics, etc. over other protein sources. We are exposing ourselves to much more carcinogens if we eat meat.

Currently animals are treated poorly and some have quite limited horrible lives.

Colon cancer.

Body odor.

Consumer cost.

Methane from cow GI tracts and its effects on the atmosphere.

The fact that we have to hide much of the unpleasantness from ourselves and from our children. A kind of cultural denial.

These are some practical reasons, that obviously have moral issues surrounding them, for shifting society away from the levels of meat eating we currently have.

 

[Orleander]

...Animals that are bred for food are causing untold problems via their waste.....

which is why hunting is good.

 

[Enmos]

which is why hunting is good.

Orleander, wtf !?

 

[Orleander]

cows are much worse for the environment than the animals who live in the wild. Wild animals also have leaner meat.
Wouldn't it be better for us and the planet to eat wild animals?

 

[Enmos]

cows are much worse for the environment than the animals who live in the wild. Wild animals also have leaner meat.
Wouldn't it be better for us and the planet to eat wild animals?

Sure... Orleander.. :bugeye:

How long do you think there will be wild animals around if we all do that ?
Do I need to remind you of the fact that the world population is about 6.6 billion !?

 

[Orleander]

We Americans think we need meat at every meal. We don't. My Mom canned a deer every year and our family of 7 did just fine.

 

[Enmos]

We Americans think we need meat at every meal. We don't. My Mom canned a deer every year and our family of 7 did just fine.

So how will you educate these people that think they need meat every day, will you succeed ?

"My Mom canned a deer every year"
Nominated for most awful sentence of the year LOL

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

which is why hunting is good.

If they eat the meat or the meat gets eaten by humans and they followed all the rules and the act itself was not slimy, sure. Within very strict bounds it can be good.

What it is, out there, in general in the world, is a mixed bag.

Remember that hunters killed off the predators of the most of the animals they hunt now. So the starvation issue is caused by hunting - often not for food. Also hunting is better than other kinds of meat eating - if all my provisos above are followed.

But meat eating in general is a serious problem.

 

[madanthonywayne]

just because we are programed a certain way doesn't mean its moral. human males are programed to spread their seed as far as possible but polgamy isn't considered moral

Doing what is natural is moral so long as it does not violate someone else's rights. So while it may be natural for me to want to have sex with every hot chick I see, I don't rape them because that would violate their rights. It would be wrong.

But animals have no right to not be eaten. As I said above, rights derive from natural law or a social contract. An animal in the state of nature has no right or expectation that he will not be eaten. Furthermore, an animal lacks the mental capacity to form or understand any social contract.

Since an animal has no rights, and it is natural and healthy for humans to eat meat, there is no moral reason not to do so.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Werd

 

[lightgigantic]

Doing what is natural is moral so long as it does not violate someone else's rights. So while it may be natural for me to want to have sex with every hot chick I see, I don't rape them because that would violate their rights. It would be wrong.

But animals have no right to not be eaten. As I said above, rights derive from natural law or a social contract. An animal in the state of nature has no right or expectation that he will not be eaten. Furthermore, an animal lacks the mental capacity to form or understand any social contract.

Since an animal has no rights, and it is natural and healthy for humans to eat meat, there is no moral reason not to do so.

so if we can't draw up a social contract with a mentally retarded person, there's no moral issues for someone who eats them?

 

[James R]

lucifers angel:

I suggest you read the early parts of this thread. You are repeating arguments that were fully rebutted earlier, and I am getting a little sick of repeating myself. Nevertheless...

animals are designed to be eaten though, we are not.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. Were apes "designed" to be eaten, according to you? Monkeys? Dogs? Cattle?

Who "designed" them to be eaten? And which other animals, apart from humans, were not "designed" to be eaten?

Also, if humans are not "designed" to be eaten, why do humans nevertheless get attacked by crocodiles, sharks, lions and other predators from time to time? Are those animals making a terrible mistake? Didn't God tell them about his "design" plan?

our stomachs can handle meat, and the original question was "is it immoral" i ask you now, how can it be when it says in the bible that you can eat meat in moderation?

Who says the bible is the last word on morality? This is the same book in which it is considered right to give up your daughter to a crowd for gang rape if the crowd comes to your house and demands you give up a guest.

EATING MEAT IS NATURAL

The "appeal to nature" fallacy is that what is natural is automatically good. It is not true that everything that is natural is good, or that everything unnatural is bad. Is using contraception bad? Because it's not natural. Is killing members of the neighbouring tribe good? Because that seems to come quite naturally.

Animal rights activists often make the claim that humans do not
"require animal protein to meet our nutritional needs". While this is
true, it is not a dietary choice recommended by North American health
authorities.

According to the USDA 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (the
Canada Food Guide was not at hand), the recommended diet is one "with
most of the calories from grain products, vegetables, fruits, lowfat
milk products, lean meats, fish, poultry, and dry beans [and] fewer
calories from fats and sweets."

As for vegetarian diets, the Guidelines state: "Most vegetarians eat
milk products and eggs, and as a group, these lacto-ovo-vegetarians
enjoy excellent health... You can get enough protein from a vegetarian
diet as long as the variety and amounts of foods consumed are
adequate. Meat, fish, and poultry are major contributors of iron,
zinc, and B vitamins in most American diets, and vegetarians should
pay special attention to these nutrients."

As for vegan diets, the Guidelines, in part, state: "Vegans eat only
food of plant origin. Because animal products are the only food
sources of vitamin B12, vegans must supplement their diets with a
source of this vitamin."

While lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets rely on animal by-products to be
complete, vegan diets rely on artificial dietary supplements and are
by definition incomplete and unnatural.

In other words, a vegetarian diet is perfectly adequate to supply a person's nutritional needs. But that is not the topic of this thread. The question of this thread is: which diet is more moral? Answer: vegetarian.

Humans have evolved for the past two million years as omnivorous
hunters/gatherers and have as much right to eat meat as any other
predator on this planet. However, unlike other modern predators, many
of whom often begin eating their prey while it is still alive and
conscious, we treat our prey far more humanely.

Instead of trying to rewrite or deny our evolutionary and dietary
heritage, it would make more sense to adopt an animal welfare approach
that advocates the humane use of our animal food sources rather than
an animal "rights" position which ultimately seeks no use of and no
contact with animals (including pets).

It is false that the animal rights position seeks no contact with animals. It is also false that the animal rights position precludes keeping animals as pets. In fact, I think you'll find that many animal rights campaigners keep pets.

Also, nobody is trying to "rewrite" evolutionary history. The point is simply that just because something was "traditionally" done in the past doesn't mean it is right and good in today's world. That has to be established.

Meat is a good source of protein and vitamins and minerals, such as iron, selenium, zinc, and B vitamins. It is one of the main sources of vitamin B12, which is only found in foods from animals, such as meat and milk.

And so....?

Look if not eating meat would save animals then why not, but has it stands at the minute, eating animals is actually saving lives of animals, also we have animals killed, by, pollution, fur hunters, other animals in a natural cycle, even though we're more inteligent, we're still top of the food chain and we're part of the natural cycle, expanding hunting and building houses is part of human nature it always have been, animals die, and they die for food

You may not realise that the vast majority of animals you eat not only die for your pleasure, but also live solely for your culinary habits. If people did not eat meat, vast numbers of animals would not be brought into existence, deliberately bred to live short and miserable lives only to be killed and put on your plate.

what are the arguement s for NOT eating meat?

Read the thread.

noy bizare, we breed animals mainly to eat (with the exception of cats, dogs, ) and if we all stop eating meat then the culling of animal will ahve to take place, because it wouldnt be economical to keep them alive

They would not be alive in the first place.

 

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

Doing what is natural is moral so long as it does not violate someone else's rights.

In this case, it is the animal's right to [enc]equal consideration[/enc] that is violated.

But animals have no right to not be eaten.

Then why do you have such a right? You're an animal.

As I said above, rights derive from natural law or a social contract. An animal in the state of nature has no right or expectation that he will not be eaten. Furthermore, an animal lacks the mental capacity to form or understand any social contract.

Read the section on "Claiming their rights" here: [enc]equal consideration[/enc].

(Haven't I explained this to you before? What did you not understand?)

 

[srikar]

animals are designed to be eaten though, we are not.

Tiger(animals) can't digest the plants so it has to choose meat only, but we can. why don't we go for veg.

how can it be wrong, we have teeth that are designed for ripping meat from bones? The cave men, would have eaten meat. not only shurbs.

Dear sir/madam,
don't think otherwise,
God given us brain also, so we have to use it before eating meat.

 

[Orleander]

....God given us brain also, so we have to use it before eating meat.

So God gave you your brain?? I understand now why you think its immoral. I suppose you think animals have a soul as well?

My brain, that I got from evolution, tells me to pick porterhouse streaks and get them med rare.

 

[Enmos]

So God gave you your brain?? I understand now why you think its immoral. I suppose you think animals have a soul as well?

My brain, that I got from evolution, tells me to pick porterhouse streaks and get them med rare.

If humans have one then animals have one too. Of course no creature has a soul as defined in the bible.

 

[Orleander]

And I don't think humans have a soul. We have self-awareness. I couldn't eat an animal that has self-awareness,like apes.