Is eating meat morally wrong

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

  1. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Circular reasoning. That may well be your position, but youve not really provided an explaination for why you hold it.
    Also i think you need to define what exactly you mean by 'thinking' and 'unthinking' in this instance, im pretty sure any animal behaviourist would have a hard time accepting that kind of black and white intellectual division.

    So youre basicaly arguing that a set of moral values should only be applied to those that can A. understand them, or B. have made some sort of implicit agreement to live under the same set of values as well.
    The problem with this rationalisation is, i have a hard time believing that you'd feel morally and intellectual justified in treating a tribe or micro-society without our same set of moral values - as entities entirely outside of our moral framework.
    I think youd still interact with them in accordance with society's moral principles, and i expect youd behave in the same way towards a feral child or adult.

    I think what youve provided so far are inconsistant ad-hoc justifications for what are in essense social norms which you conform to not out of reason, but out of habit.
    Im willing to proved wrong, but thats increasing what it looks like to me.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    A species that is capable of reason, capable of logic, capable of speech.
    Exactly. Consider the case of a murderer. He deserves death because he has demonstrated he will not abide by the social contract. No animal can repect, or even understand a moral code.
    Sure, out of habit. But as I showed in the case of a murderer, if your feral tribe showed itself to be hostile, it would lose the protections offered to people under the social contract.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Well, an extraordinary number of mammals can exhibit logic and reason (although obviously not of the formal kind), and many animals use vocalisations as a means of communication, so its actually not the case that 'only humans' have speech and reason as you might assume.
    If youre going to keep these defintions i think youre going to run into trouble very quickly because alot of what you (probably) eat readily meets your criteria for what a 'thinking' entity should be.

    He does? says who?

    So what you're saying here is your set of values would still apply to those that didnt share them, the only condition under which they wouldnt would be when they violated your own moral code.
    So what moral codes of ours is it that animals are consistantly violating if this is the logic youre working from?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    39,397
    madanthonywayne:

    Do you own any pets?

    Really, I'm surprised at the number of people in this thread who put forward the absurd idea that animals can't and don't think. If you have a dog or a cat or a bird, all you need to do is watch it for a reasonable amount of time to see that it thinks and has feelings.

    You'll have to do far better than make the unsupported assertion that animals do not think to justify your meat eating.

    Also, even taking the absurd position that you are right, and all non-human animals are nothing more than automatons, it still doesn't follow that they aren't entitled to moral consideration. You wouldn't kill and eat a mentally-disabled human being who you considered to be incapable of thinking, would you? Or how about a person in a coma? Or an unborn child?

    Please read the section "claiming their rights" here:

    [enc]Equal Consideration[/enc]

    For more on this, you can also review my previous posts in this thread.

    But there is no absence of moral guidance. I'll volunteer to guide you, madanthonywayne. You obviously need it.

    You define "thinking being" as:

    So, if you can't talk, you can't think, right?

    What about a dumb (i.e. unable to speak, not stupid) person? Or does your definition only apply to species and not individuals? (And if that is the case, why make such a blanket arbitrary rule?) What about Stephen Hawking? He is not capable of speech. Would you eat him?

    Then, on the other side of the ledger we have cockatoos who can speak, and a number of apes who speak using sign language. Are they entitled not to be eaten, then? Or what?

    Neither can whole classes of human beings - the intellectually disabled, young children and infants, for example. Yet you don't eat them. Do you?
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Bells:

    That's not a valid reason for saying that it is ok to eat one but not the other. That's just speciesism - preferring one species above another for no articulated reason.

    What you need to do to start to make a valid argument is to specify some characteristic that distinguishes the cow from the human in a moral sense, such that the cow no longer has any rights. Because the base assumption ought to be that the cow is entitled to [enc]equal consideration[/enc], as I have explained.

    Not at all. Either you believe, like madanthonywayne, that non-human animals are incapable of thought, such that they act entirely like pre-programmed machines, or you believe that they have some capacity to reason and think like human beings.

    And if you believe that your dog can think and have a personality, you'll be hard pressed to argue that the cow you eat for dinner cannot and does not.

    But this point is not seriously worth arguing. Anybody who has stood in a field and watched cows for a reasonable amount of time could not doubt that they think and feel. I can only assume that this argument is made by meaters so often either because they are disingenuous or because they have little experience with live animals. Maybe it is a problem born of living in big cities largely disconnected from the natural world. People start to imagine what animals are like, rather than experiencing what they are like by watching them and interacting with them.

    How many times to I have to repeat myself? I understand why meat eaters get defensive when confronted with the immorality of their actions. I understand that they feel attacked, and I understand that the natural response is to lash out at the perceived attacker rather than thinking about the issue. People are not always rational.

    Moral judgements always depend on all the circumstances of a situation. Few moral issues, and certainly not the ones people argue about, are cut and dried. Often, several factors are relevant to moral judgements. The interests of one party often conflict with the interests of another. Moral judgement is a balancing act.

    I have not once made the general statement "All meat eaters are immoral, all the time in every circumstance when they eat meat." In fact, at numerous points I have conceded circumstances where it may be perfectly moral to eat meat. Consider the case of the plane crash survivors in the Andes who ate they dead comrades in order to live. Did they act morally? I would say they did, even though they ate meat, and human meat at that. But that was a special case.

    Similarly, it seems to me that you have made out a special case in regards to yourself. If you do not eat meat, you will get sick and possibly die. So, the lesser evil in that case is to eat the meat, I would say. I have no moral problem with that.

    I repeat my point, though, that most people will not die if they do not eat meat.

    Most vegetarians do not take any supplements. It is simply wrong to claim that this is necessary. And even if it was, it may still be morally preferable to take supplements than to kill animals.

    I haven't changed what I've been arguing at any point in this thread, I don't think.

    Meat eating is unsavoury, from a moral point of view, as I have established.

    No, I do not. I would not advocate locking somebody in jail because they ate meat, while I might think that a perfectly appropriate punishment for a rapist.

    You seem to be assuming there can only be one of two reactions to an immoral act: total condemnation or total absolution. Or at least you seem to think I think that.

    Agreed. Nobody is forcing anybody to be vegetarian here. Where's the harm in having an honest discussion about it?

    You don't need to justify yourself to me. But I would hope you would be able to justify your actions to yourself. That's what being a moral person is all about.

    There are more than enough vegetables to go around (and there'd be even more if nobody ate meat), so I'm not sure what you're talking about in your last point here.
     
  9. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    madan:
    A baby will not/cannot abide by a social contract, either.

    Edit: Whoops, James R beat me to it.
     
  10. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    A german shepherd and two cats. Sure, they're smart in their own way, but nothing approaching a human.

    Regardless, I wouldn't eat a dog or cat. They're pets, not food.
    Of course not. They're people. Eating a person is morally repugnant and unsafe to boot.
    I've already commented on cannibalism. It's disgusting and unsafe.
    I wouldn't eat an ape or monkey. Too close to cannibalism. Probably not a talking bird either. Although that's more a case of a biological tape recorder than actual speech. But a talking bird is probably someone's pet. It would be rude to eat it.
    Cannibalism.

    Really, it comes down to the fact that humans are designed to eat meat. It's natural and healthy for us to do so.

    Human rights are based on natural law, or a social contract. Does an animal, in the state of nature, have any right or expectation that he will not be eaten? Of course not. So eating animals is not a violation of any natural law.

    Does an animal have the ability to abide by or understand any social contract? Or course not. So again, there is no basis for any claim that animals have a right to not be eaten.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I was not saying it was. I was saying that a human is a human and a cow is a cow.

    It should have equal consideration. However, it does not have equal consideration, because as you admit yourself later on in your post, there are times when it is necessary for someone to eat meat.. in instances where there is a lack of another food source or for health reasons (such as severe anemia). If they were to have equal consideration, necessity would not factor into the equation. For example, equal consideration of human beings, means we will not and cannot kill a human being for food.

    I do believe cows and other animals do have the capacity and the ability to think and even reason. I do not, however, think that Bessy the cow has the same capacity of thought and reason as I do. Why? Because Bessy is a cow and has the capacity of thought and reason of a cow. I do not hold the human species as the benchmark for all animals to live up to or to be like.

    I am not saying a cow should be accorded no rights because she thinks like a cow. I am merely saying human beings should not be viewed as the benchmark in how animals think and behave. I similarly do not think a child has the capacity to think like an adult. Thus I treat the child like a child and not like an adult.

    Get very sick? Yes. Die? Well lets hope not. I suffer from severe anemia and if I don't eat meat, I will find myself in the position of having to have weekly iron injections and/or infusions (last time I was having an injection every 2 days).. on top of having to consume vast amounts of iron tablets, which in turn causes other issues. And run the risk of having to have blood transfusions every few months (and I really do not like having to go into hospital over night for a transfusion every few months.. since each time I have had to do it, I would always get sick afterwards). As it is, I take iron supplements, but a reasonable amount, and I eat meat and it makes a huge difference. I could do as above and live with the constant injections and the like. But I am selfish. I was a vegetarian for a while and the resulting health problems were just not worth it... I decided to become selfish. It is my moral justification.. selfish yes.. but also necessary.

    I suspect this is something genetic (several of my relatives on my father's side also have the same issues), since my eldest son also had iron issues when he stopped eating meat for a month (he was told by his 5 year old cousin that the beef he was eating was actually Otis the cow from Barnyard.. my son refused to eat meat thinking he was eating his favourite movie character.. and within 3 weeks he was displaying symptoms of anemia.. lethargy and being tired all the time... the iron enriched cereal was simply not enough and a blood test verified that his iron levels had dropped so we then had to start grinding red meat and hiding it in his food until he got over it).

    In this, cows do not have equal consideration.

    No they will not.

    Really? Every single vegetarian and vegan I know take supplements. One vegan friend often finds himself having severe cravings for meat, and when it gets really bad, he has an... his doctor advised him if his body was craving something, it most probably meant his body needed it. And that is even with supplements.

    I do.

    Neither do I really.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. steinarey Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    If I had to...

    Humans are predators. We are to eat meat. It's just something we do! I mean if some other predator (dogs for instance) would have to pick either meat or salad... the choice would be obvious. But since we can base this choice upon reasoning it would be more of a "state of mind" pick. If you were trapped somewhere and rescue was on it's way, but couldn't arrive until after a day or two and you knew that you wouldn't last that long without nourishment and there was nothing to eat... but you had
    pan and something to start a fire. And you happended to bring a pet along... Would you rather die then eat?
    The three most important instincts (that is in this order) are: Survival, feading and fornicate... (Example: A lion escaped from the zoo and you happened to be there, so it fallowed you and you had to run for your life. Now, you were really hungry and horny as hell, but you had to survive. You would run past a Habmurger (or tofu) give-away. You wouldn't stop for food. You would rather run then get killed. And so on...)
    Now I'm trying to answer more then one question at once here, so this may seem a little "dissected" but I'm in a time shortage.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. srikar Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    66
    Just,All of you think once,
    How would it be when other animals make some dishes with our meat,
    like human bone soup, human leg sticks and brain fry.
     
  14. lucifers angel same shit, differant day!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,590
    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.
     
  15. lucifers angel same shit, differant day!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,590
    animals are designed to be eaten though, we are not.
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    there are accounts of people being introduced to sharks, crocodiles and tigers who voiced strong opinions that suggest otherwise
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    even if you want to fantasize about the capacities of your fangs and disregard your mandible jaw, you still have an intestine about 4 times too long for handling meat and stomach acid that is no where near as effective as your regular meat eaters (as if their lack off sweat pores also didn't indicate what was the most suitable eatable)
     
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    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
     
  19. lucifers angel same shit, differant day!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,590
    spoken like a true veggie!

    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?

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    EATING MEAT IS NATURAL

    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.

    Anthropologists and human paleontologists have found that modern Homo
    sapiens, despite our advanced technology and civilization, are not
    significantly different either physiologically or psychologically from
    our Paleolithic ancestors. In their groundbreaking 1988 book "The
    Paleolithic Prescription: A Program of Diet & Exercise and a Design
    for Living", MDs Eaton and Konner and researcher Shostak used the
    Paleolithic diet which consisted of a wide variety of vegetables,
    fruit, and wild game (which is very lean meat) to recommend a modern
    diet similar to the American Dietary Guidelines.

    Eaton et al. also claimed that, while adult vegans "can be basically
    healthy... there is some evidence that children raised exclusively on
    such diets have slowed growth and development. To propose humans as
    basically vegetarian in nature, however, is clearly unjustifed. Meat
    is, and has always been, a major constituent of the human diet."

    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).

    -------------------------------------------

    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.


    ----------------------------------

    Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago, according to a study of our ancestors' teeth. In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones dated at around 2.5 million years old. But no one could be sure that they were made by meat-eating hominids, because none appeared to have suitable teeth.

    Now an analysis by Peter Ungar of the University of Arkansas has revealed that the first members of Homo had much sharper teeth than their most likely immediate ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis, the species that produced the famous fossil Lucy.

    Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to grinding. The ability to cut is determined by the slope of the cusps, or crests. "Steeper crests mean the ability to consume tougher foods," Ungar says. He has found that the crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves and stems, but not meat.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    then its not clear why you tried to pose the argument that it was "natural" and therefore "moral"


    most of the words in the bible that are translated as meat are actually "food"

    there are even accounts of early romans who comment that christians they encountered were vegetarians

    this doesn't offer any rebuttal to what I posted
     
  21. lucifers angel same shit, differant day!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,590


    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,

    what are the arguement s for NOT eating meat?
     
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    bizarre

    in short, the glory of being on top of the food chain sounds like something from a head hunter tribe, the fact that death is a natural part of life doesn't make unnecessary slaughter moral and the expansion of human nature lies in cultivating values like compassion rather than brutishness
     
  23. lucifers angel same shit, differant day!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,590
    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
     

Share This Page