Is eating meat morally wrong

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Theoryofrelativity, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773
    Yes, but if your argument is that consciousness necessitates Equal Consideration in relation to animal consumption, then we must also consider the possible consciousness of non-animals, such as plants, bacteria, fungi, etc.

    Again, how is it patently obvious? To make such a claim, there must be some requisite that identifies consciousness.

    My ultimate point is this, you cannot claim Equal Consideration based on consciousness because, one, we do not know if consciousness is reserved for only animals and Humans, and two, we cannot pinpoint a requisite outline to identify said consciousness. In short, your argument is fallacious.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Becuase he must be stopped, Or more likely I am hoping that as he rereads his posts he develops an aneurism. Alhtough in my opinion that would only improve his cognitive abilities.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    QuarkMoon:

    I have already addressed your objection in a previous post.

    According to your argument, there is no way to know if animals such as cattle and sheep are conscious. But, by the same reasoning, there's no way I can know if you are conscious.

    Does it then follow that no human being is worthy of moral consideration, because we can't be sure whether human beings are conscious or not?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773
    Exactly!

    And that's where your argument truly disintegrates. We afford equal consideration to our own species, you and I are both Human and therefore possess equal moral consideration. The only way your argument of equal consideration can hold is if you find some other determining and definitive quality that would justify an equal moral consideration toward animals.
     
  8. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    Hi Scott,

    yeah, he is stripping off the veils over the conscience of humanity systematically. suddenly feeling like naked in the bright light..? :m:
     
  9. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773
    Not really, if we have no reason to feel conscientious about consuming animals in the first place.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Quarkmoon:

    You misunderstand the principle of equal consideration. It says "give equal consideration to things which are the same, unless there is a compelling reason not to".

    You have the prerequisites around the wrong way.
     
  11. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    People please understand that whatever you say, whatever prove you bring that meat is moral to eat, James R will never agree.
     
  12. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,225
    I cannot agree with this statement, even though I am a meat eater.
     
  13. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    ...weird how you replied only now.
     
  14. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773
    I see. Well, since we have already eliminated consciousness because of the inability to detect it or even define it, what other qualities should we use to justify equal consideration toward animals?
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Nobody has has contributed any logical arguments to "prove" that meat eating is moral in this thread so far.

    The most common argument for eating meat in this thread has been the naturalistic fallacy.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Quarkmoon:

    We don't look for qualities to justify equal consideration. We look for qualities which might say that equal consideration is unwarranted.

    Example: John has a right not to be murdered. Should that right also be extended to Sally? The presumption is that it should, unless some compelling reason can be given for not extending this right to Sally, based on important differences between Sally and John.

    Now consider: John has the right not to be murdered. Should that right be extended to cattle?
     
  17. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773
    Gotcha.

    What about advancement? Animals do not have the ability to advance beyond their natural habitat. Does advancement make equal consideration unwarranted?
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I don't understand what you mean by "advancement".

    Does every individual human being possess "advancement", and every animal lack it? And how is that relevant to the question of whether or not it is acceptable to treat animals as things and not as beings of intrinsic value?
     
  19. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773
    Advancement, as in the ability to survive and thrive outside of it's natural habitat.

    Absolutely, all Humans possess the ability for advancement. Whether they can take advantage of that ability or not due to illness or disability is another matter.

    Can animals survive and thrive outside of their natural habitats without Human interference? If so, which one's?

    If animals do not possess the ability to advance, that would be a quality that would allow us to say:
    Their inability to advance raises the Human race above animals, and therefore equal consideration would not apply.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Quarkmoon,

    Basically, in saying that humans are "above" other animals, you are arguing that whatever inherent value animals have, it must be less than the inherent value of any human being. This, you claim, justifies humans in treating animals as nothing more than resources for human consumption or other exploitation.

    This is no different from claiming that women have less inherent value than men, or black people have less inherent value than white people.

    Equal inherent value is a prerequisite to any workable moral system. If we do not start from an assumption of equal inherent value for all human beings, then some humans will be excluded from the moral community and their interests in not suffering ignored. To say that a human has moral significance, but less value than other human beings is a contradiction. It would justify some humans treating other humans merely as economic resources, because they are "lower" than the privileged humans who are fully-fledged members of the moral community.

    Similarly, if we do not accord equal inherent value to animals, then any kind of animal rights is a sham. If humans are "above" animals, then animals have no real rights at all. Any human can exploit the animal solely as an economic resource - treat it as a "thing" rather than a being of intrinsic worth.

    Taking another tack, note that all sentient beings value themselves, even if nobody else does. In other words, they are not indifferent to what happens to them. They take an active interest in not suffering and in their continued existence. This is true of animals as much as it is true of humans, which leads rational people to regard animal suffering as relevant in the first place.

    If we accord equal inherent value to all humans, irrespective of their characteristics, and at the same time deny equal inherent value to animals, then our failure to apply the principle of equal consideration is arbitrary and unjustifiable.

    You claim that all humans can "survive and thrive outside of [their] natural habitat." In fact, there are many "habitats" in which survival is impossible for humans. But more importantly, many humans do not have this capacity at all. For example, consider young children or babies, or mentally disabled people. Do you regard their inability to "survive and thrive" on their own sufficient justification to deny them equal consideration in the matter of moral rights, and in particular in the right not to be treated solely as a resource for others?
     
  21. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Why do you claim anything has any inherent value at all. Is there value is a sociopathic murderer who has never given anything to society except fear and sadness? Is there any real value in acrilic paint on paper? Is there any value is a slab of stone carved in an aesthetically pleasing shape? Is there any value in deformed brain dead lamb?

    Strawman. No one made the claim of individuals in a society. This strictly species versus species, dragging in gender or ethnic issues is a pathetic attempt at a diversion.

    A strange world you live in. Do you believe also that children should have all the rights and responsibilities of adults beginning at birth? If you are sane of course you answered no. Humans are not "above" animals except in your twisted interpretation. However they are largely not a part of society. They are outside it. Even someone such as yourself recognizes that those outside of society only have what rights we choose to grant them.

    It is relevant to a point, but it is much like the concern you have for a stalk of corn. It is sad to a point but ultimately unimportant unless the animal suffering is my pet. That said animal suffering is not pointless at times. I will admit that cosmetics testing on animals is barbaric, however medical testing is perfectly fine. Some may think that a double stnadard, but it isn't. Cosmetics testing has no real value to society, however Medical testing does.

    This line is drawn by species, hardly arbitrary, and in so being does not need justification. For your edification that means it is justifiable but it does not require it. Species is a great way to draw boundaries as you encompass everything from the best to the worst.

    As explained above this is Species versus Species not Individual versus individual. You keep attempting to apeal to emotion by making it by individuals. This is a shameless track, especially considering the category of this discussion.
     
  22. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    Eating meat is morally right. The human body was designed to include digestion of meat, thus it is moral for humans to eat meat. In parallel the computer was designed to run a specific program, thus it is moral for the computer to run that program.
     
  23. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,225
    That is, the digestion of meat in a jungle setting.

    But we live in cities, and have minds.

    You can run a program to see its output, no harm done. Would you kill a pet for the dinner table?
     

Share This Page