Is eating meat morally wrong

srikar said:
...It doesn't matter whether it has a soul or not.It is also a living being like us.
don't you feel anything when you cut off it's head and boiling it's body.
Click to expand...

so are seaweed and soybeans and every tree on the planet. :shrug: Why is it ok to consume that life?

I'm not a robot, of course I feel something cutting off an animals head. Depends on the animal.
 
Are you of the opinion the it isn't instinct with humans ?
Elephants mourn, why wouldn't a cow.. ? Seems like an arbitrary reason to me Orleander.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
Given that it is a convention we can certainly extend this convention to include other species, perhaps for reasons that are not exactly the same as the reasons we extend them to humans. Perhaps these would be more focused on their ability to suffer, etc.
Click to expand...
Sure, we could extend it to animals, or rocks, or the ocean. But it doesn't make sense to do so.

Since most people do, in fact, eat meat; it's clear that most people would not support granting animals equal rights with humans.
But not in terms of their right to life or suffering. And practically speaking pet owners treat their pets with a similar morality. They control facets of their pets lives that they would not another adult human's but they do consider their pets as having rights to life and freedom from suffering. Attempts to go against these rights by another person will be met with unbelievable resistance.
Click to expand...
Most reasonable people do not treat their pets the same as children. I grant that some do. But those people are generally considered to be a bit "off".

For instance, I'd spend every penny I have to save the life of any of my children. But I wouldn't go much above a couple grand for pet (if that).
To say we shouldn't seems odd too. If we want to where does this meta-ethics come in to say we shouldn't here but it was OK with humans. If the issue is practicality, well, again, one can point to numerous examples animals being granted rights working out just peachy for really a rather large number of people.
Click to expand...
Rights are a way for members of an intelligent social species to deal with each other. In the absense of a system of mutually agreed upon rights, we exist in a state of constant warfare. With people constantly fighting, not much progress can be made. It's extremely inefficient. So we agree to treat each other fairly, to respect each other's "rights".

There is no war between man and cows or pigs. Quite the contrary. So there is no reason to extend the concept of "rights" to include them. Man would lose an important source of food; and the cows and pigs would soon become extinct once they were rendered of no value to humans. It would be a lose-lose proposition.
 
Orleander said:
so if I take deer and raise them in a pen, you could eat them?
Click to expand...

No, you took it from the wild. I realize that domesticated livestock also had wild forefathers.. but that day lies in the past. Domesticated livestock is necessary nowadays because of our huge population. It's the lesser of two evils as far as I'm concerned.
We have livestock now so hands off the wild animals.
 
Enmos said:
I would, I think Bisons are endangered ?
They have alternatives nowadays.. if they don't it's fine.. but maybe we should provide them alternatives.
Click to expand...

they aren't endangered, in fact we cull the herds. Provide them with an alternative?? :bugeye: They know what a grocery store is.
 
Orleander said:
they aren't endangered, in fact we cull the herds. Provide them with an alternative?? :bugeye: They know what a grocery store is.
Click to expand...

If they know what a grocery store is they don't need to kill any Bisons.
Of course there is the argument of culture.. I don't think your example is comparable to the average American.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top