Until you give all animals equal rights to humans,

[oiram]

So if it’s ethical to eat cows, and pigs, why wouldn’t it be ethical to eat a cat or dog?
Some say it’s wrong to just kill for the sport of killing unless you are going to eat what you kill, so if you are hungry and kill to eat then it’s alright. What if I was hungry and needed to eat and the only thing around to feed your family is another human, why isn’t it alright to kill and eat another human?

Is this the argument the OP is basically making?

 

[takandjive]

So if it’s ethical to eat cows, and pigs, why wouldn’t it be ethical to eat a cat or dog?
Some say it’s wrong to just kill for the sport of killing unless you are going to eat what you kill, so if you are hungry and kill to eat then it’s alright. What if I was hungry and needed to eat and the only thing around to feed your family is another human, why isn’t it alright to kill and eat another human?

Is this the argument the OP is basically making?

Because although ethical lines are arbitrary, and that big ol' Spivakian otherness has a huge factor in what we find right or wrong. I don't want to eat my cat because we have a bond. I don't wanna eat other cats because I categorize them with my sweet booboo kitty. I feel less sad when a pedophile dies than when a baby dies because one is unfamiliar and sick and does not appeal to my own little biological urges. Dig?

 

[oiram]

Yea I understand that about animals in regards to your kitty, but when you are hungry and if cat was all you had would you put aside your ethics in order to survive? If so then wouldn’t you consider yourself no less than the person who already eats cats, even if they do it because they like the taste of cat?

I feel less sad when a pedophile dies than when a baby dies because one is unfamiliar and sick and does not appeal to my own little biological urges. Dig?

To a point.

You say you feel less sad when a pedophile dies than a child, but only because a pedophile is unfamiliar with your biological urges. So if your child grew up to become a pedophile you would still love them just not their actions.

 

[takandjive]

Yea I understand that about animals in regards to your kitty, but when you are hungry and if cat was all you had would you put aside your ethics in order to survive? If so then wouldn’t you consider yourself no less than the person who already eats cats, even if they do it because they like the taste of cat?




To a point.

You say you feel less sad when a pedophile dies than a child, but only because a pedophile is unfamiliar with your biological urges. So if your child grew up to become a pedophile you would still love them just not their actions.

Ding. And therefore, if my daughter grows into a pedo, I'm more likely to be bummed out to hear a pedo was killed in prison.

And "otherness" is situational. IE, I'm starving and there's a one-armed elderly woman and a cat. I'll probably eat the cat. It's less like me. See? It's the concept of the dominant paradigm.

 

[Tnerb]

Shut up about Ethics, ethics are not ethical if it's selfish.


Don't tell other people what's right and wrong when you yourelf are not pure, who are all of you to judge ethical standards of other living creatures, mind your own business unless your trying to become perfect and pure yourself.

Next time you eat a piece of meat, (that you cowardly did not kill yourself) think about how you would taste in my burger, because I dont find it wrong to shoot you anymore than shooting a pig. your all the same, little animals. most of you are only alive because the system protects the weak, you would be a meal and some hide without protection from the bad people.


If you live by the gun you die by the gun, so when you cry over your loved ones graves when they pass, remember all the lives you have contributed to taking. yes lives animals had lives too.

For the cocky people that are thinking that insects and dumb little cows are not worth of life as much as we are, how would you really act if I had a shotgun and blew off your right leg then pointed it at your face. I bet you would'nt think "circle of life, part of the food chain" then would you. you would be screaming for help like a little baby. where I would be reaching for my pistol to fire back with a smile on my face.

You love how that meat tasted, but your just a walking sack of meat to dont ever forget that and start thinking your superior and more deserving of life because your not and I would be able to take the life of every one of you here, nobody is untouchable. Don't throw lives away so carelessly, even if it's just an ant avoid it if you can. Don't just step on it.



peace.

i wont report you this time.

 

[oiram]

Ding. And therefore, if my daughter grows into a pedo, I'm more likely to be bummed out to hear a pedo was killed in prison.

And "otherness" is situational. IE, I'm starving and there's a one-armed elderly woman and a cat. I'll probably eat the cat. It's less like me. See? It's the concept of the dominant paradigm.

I understand this and since your daughter isn’t a pedo = you dislike pedos.

Wow I guess the choice between an elderly lady with one arm and a cat would be a hard one.

The elderly lady doesn’t have long to live but being she has only one arm would be less of a loss of human life opposed to a two armed person. The taste of cat can’t be beat in the early afternoon and elderly people are too “leathery” tasting to enjoy at any time.

 

[Pandaemoni]

the reason i don't eat people is the same reason not to eat animals. its causing pain for something i don't need. the benefits of maintaining social stability are indeed present though.

we don't HAVE to eat meat, as far as i know its not a biological necessity. everything in meat is in vegetables. people who cannot afford another food source, or can't get enough iron and protein in their diet without meat, them killing something to survive is justified. but for a lot of people who aren't in poverty, its just a choice.

i'm not advocating veganism, just vegetarianism. what's the point of the ur last paragraph? we haven't done it before so why start now? i'd argue that killing an animal, cos you feel like having steak, is unethical, even if its what we've done for a long time. meat eating has dominated because at times (definitely not now, for anyone working class+ in civilized world) its been necessary for survival, and also because a lot of people don't give a shit about the pain an animal goes through, its overshadowed by their enjoyment of lamb chops.

also, good post baron.

Ethics are not objectively determined. In a broader sense, they are what we as a social group agree they are. There is no ethical distinction between eating a plant or eating an animal save that society may agree to draw a distinction between the two for purposes of social convention and establishing social order. In the same way it is not unethical to eat a dog, as opposed to a cow. The distinction between the two is that in the west we tend to view dogs as "companions" rather than food. If everyone agreed tomorrow that dogs are food, eating them would be perfectly ethical.

Eating humans is likewise not not categorically ethical save for two problems (i) on a social level the practice is not condoned and (ii) on a deeper level a rule against eating ones fellow humans is a rule that helps foster a degree of stability in our society. We could very well adopt a rule that said that we should cook and eat the flesh of loved ones who die of natural, non-disease related causes as part of the funerary ritual and still maintain social cohesion. That rule would not be "unethical" and could be included within a package of consistent and valid ethics. You and I may not like it, presumably, but that is because we are biased by our preference for our own culture Among the Fore trivbe of Papua New Guinea, ion the other hand, such ritual consumption of the dead is a tradition and they do indeed have a functioning ethical paradigm.

There is no such thing as "ethics" in a vacuum because ethics are a soail construct with as much objective content as the notions of good and evil. The primary distinction of ethics is that, for an ethical system to be accepted in most philosophies, then the social consensus (i.e. "society") that results from the implementation of that ethical system must be cohesive and stable.

A system in which eating meat is encourages is not forbidden under that test. A system where eating meat is forbidden is also permitted. The most that vegetarians can argue validly, imo, is that they have a preference for ethical systems that forbid the eating of meat. Trying to browbeat the vast majority of humanity into agreeing with you is like trying to convince us that carrots taste better than steak. Argue away, but one's preference is not an objective fact of the universe.

 

[Enmos]

Human ethics are born of arrogance.

 

[takandjive]

I understand this and since your daughter isn’t a pedo = you dislike pedos.

Wow I guess the choice between an elderly lady with one arm and a cat would be a hard one.

The elderly lady doesn’t have long to live but being she has only one arm would be less of a loss of human life opposed to a two armed person. The taste of cat can’t be beat in the early afternoon and elderly people are too “leathery” tasting to enjoy at any time.

Are you being purposely obtuse? My point is, humans are fearful and/or controlling of "otherness," what we don't understand and/or what's different.

 

[oiram]

Are you being purposely obtuse? My point is, humans are fearful and/or controlling of "otherness," what we don't understand and/or what's different.

I guess when I had to go look up what the word obtuse meant that should answer your question.

ob⋅tuse

–adjective

1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
2. not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.
3. (of a leaf, petal, etc.) rounded at the extremity.
4. indistinctly felt or perceived, as pain or sound.
________________________________________

I come to this forum to learn and try to grasp things so that I can expand my so called horizons but honestly the vocabulary, view points and general conversation here is so far over my head I am often lost, but I’m not giving up yet .

So I fit seems I just got off the short but please just work with me and have some patience.

By the way the comment about the one armed lady being less human than a two armed person was an attempt at humor. Even my humor lacks huh? Don’t answer that.

 

[takandjive]

As long as you're not being a jackass on purpose and you're just socially awkward, we're fine.

 

[oiram]

As long as you're not being a jackass on purpose and you're just socially awkward, we're fine.

No I am not trying to be a jackass or troll or anything like that. I am very serious about not being very “quick” and having to read things a few times before I think I understand them and even then it’s not assured I understand them. I am not proud of being “slow” but it’s the truth and I have to accept it.

I also think my “thinking” and /or “perspective” on most things in life is not the same as the majority of the population and that’s another reason I am here on this Ethics, morality, and justice site.

 

[oiram]

Maybe the PC term would be “socially Challenged”

 

[codanblad]

There is nothing wrong with eating meat.

unless you have a conscience (this applies to most consumption of meat).

However, if your question is "should the strong be able to eat the weak?" The answer is yes; it isn't that I am evil or immoral, it's that there IS NO morality. Life is this way. That's that. Even if it doesn't want to be my dinner, I do want it to be my dinner, and I am superior to it. I don't apologize for being intellectually superior to cows; I take advantage of this detail and use it to my benefit and pleasure

why do you consider morality non-existent? because its man-made and differs from person to person? you're saying beliefs don't exist. i think what you're trying to say is we don't possess a definitive set of morals, regardless morals can still have merit.

Using your argument: Hitler raised an army. Being stronger, there was nothing wrong with him killing all those people.

having experienced pain, and looking at the similarity between humans and other animals, i wouldn't want another animal to experience pain. when my survival depends on it, i would eat shellfish etc.

 

[codanblad]

oh and BTW, the essential fatty acids which are found in seafood and make up the mylon sheaths (i think) around our nerons. We cant make, we cant get enough from plants or even most meat. The ONLY abundent source is shellfish

then eating shellfish is justifiable.

 

[Norsefire]

unless you have a conscience (this applies to most consumption of meat).

Morality is a barrier. Furthermore, even with a conscience, there is nothing wrong with surviving.

why do you consider morality non-existent? because its man-made and differs from person to person? you're saying beliefs don't exist. i think what you're trying to say is we don't possess a definitive set of morals, regardless morals can still have merit.

Just like gods and angels

In other words, we can talk about them all we want, but there is no true objective morality, and if anything, morals are a barrier.

Using your argument: Hitler raised an army. Being stronger, there was nothing wrong with him killing all those people.

Precisely.

I might happen to disagree with what he did, but I can't say what he did was "wrong"; only "wrong" in my opinion.

having experienced pain, and looking at the similarity between humans and other animals, i wouldn't want another animal to experience pain. when my survival depends on it, i would eat shellfish etc.

Then that is your choice. Having experienced the wonderful world of meat, and knowing that other animals are too ignorant to do anything about it, I am going to continue taking advantage of them to feed myself.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Using your argument: Hitler raised an army. Being stronger, there was nothing wrong with him killing all those people.

I believe the truth is that, insofar as it relates to me, Hitler was wrong because I subjectively feel he was wrong. In relation to you, no doubt, Hitler was wrong because you feel (again subjectively) he was wrong. And so it goes for most of the people on the planet.

When we say, in the broader sense "Hitler was wrong and unethical" what we mean is that there is a broad consensus that Hitler violated the set of social rules we believe he should have followed. That consensus, though, is derived by aggregating a large number of subjective opinions that happen to agree.

It could not be said (at the present time) that the anti-meat position has achieved such a consensus, nor is there any way to prove in some objective sense that any such consensus view is "correct."

 

[Cellar_Door]

Shut up about Ethics, ethics are not ethical if it's selfish.

Meaning?

Next time you eat a piece of meat, (that you cowardly did not kill yourself) think about how you would taste in my burger, because I dont find it wrong to shoot you anymore than shooting a pig. your all the same, little animals. most of you are only alive because the system protects the weak, you would be a meal and some hide without protection from the bad people.

So you seriously think that we would all be cannabilizing each other if 'the system' (whatever that is) didn't exist? What bollocks. We are top of the food chain, that's why we don't have any natural predators.

If you live by the gun you die by the gun, so when you cry over your loved ones graves when they pass, remember all the lives you have contributed to taking. yes lives animals had lives too.

We are certainly not the only predators in the world. If we are, and I quote, 'the same, little animals' why don't you care about the gazelles getting ripped apart in the savannah? Or cats torturing mice before they eat them (trust me, my cats delight in it)? Or the fox that breaks into the lambing shed?
If we are all so similar in rank, shouldn't these creatures be answerable for their violent and bloody murders too? Hmm, I smell double standards... or is that just my bacon sandwich?

For the cocky people that are thinking that insects and dumb little cows are not worth of life as much as we are, how would you really act if I had a shotgun and blew off your right leg then pointed it at your face. I bet you would'nt think "circle of life, part of the food chain" then would you. you would be screaming for help like a little baby. where I would be reaching for my pistol to fire back with a smile on my face.

Why, would you then proceed to eat my corpse? How on earth is that example relevant to a discussion on the ethics of the meat industry?

You love how that meat tasted, but your just a walking sack of meat to dont ever forget that and start thinking your superior and more deserving of life because your not and I would be able to take the life of every one of you here, nobody is untouchable. Don't throw lives away so carelessly, even if it's just an ant avoid it if you can. Don't just step on it.

I'd be able to take your life too. Ants? I thought we were talking about cows?

:shrug:

 

[oiram]

I think anything is justifiable to eat if it’s for survival; this is the law of nature and nothing more.

 

[Nasor]

Ditto, per the OP, humans are being hypocritical if they claim anything about "human rights" yet not hold those same "rights" for other animals. Humans are, after all, just another animal in the world.

Whether or not it's hypocritical to recognize rights in humans but not in animals depends on where exactly you think the rights come from and what they are based on. Most of the common principles on which moral philosophers formulate rights don't extend well to animals.