Is eating meat morally wrong

TW Scott:

Ah! Once again you let your true colours peak through. You also like to hunt animals for pleasure, as well as eating them for fun. And you think your hunting, which causes yet more pain and suffering for no good reason, is also justifiable, I suppose. How do you justify your hunting, by the way? Do you just enjoy hurting things?

No. A person who cannot appreciate that creatures other than himself can suffer, and that that might matter, is stunted.

Oh, you hunt for altruistic reasons to ... er ... save the deer by ... er ... killing them. Interesting logic. Why didn't the deer starve to death before you came in with your gun to save them?

It is one thing for you to decide how to live (or not) your own life. But for you to make arbitrary decisions on behalf of other animals is presumtuous and selfish in the extreme. Once again, you merely confirm that, to you, all animals are nothing more than your property, to deal with as you see fit.

What moral code do you live by? "Do what's good for TW" seems to be it, as far as I can tell.

There are multiple aims of imprisonment, which we can discuss in a separate thread if you wish. One aim is rehabilitation, which benefits the organism. There are other aims, too, which benefit the wider society. Anyway, this is off topic. Discuss it elsewhere, if you wish.

No. You are essentially saying "I can eat animals because they all have to die at some stage anyway, so it is ok for me to kill them for my own pleasure." By the same reasoning, I should be allowed to kill you arbitrarily at any time I wish, because you'll die eventually anyway.

Then you think wrong - again. Why didn't you eat the porcupine? Not hungry? Too many spines?

What I wonder is why you say you care about porcupines, but when it comes to cows and sheep and deer you don't give a damn. Either you're a hypocrit or you're being dishonest.

No. Now I want to know why you want to draw arbitrary lines between species. If you say it is wrong for a cow to kill another cow, why is it ok for you to kill a cow? just because its you, and you're special? Or some other reason?

But I have a defensible basis for my belief, whereas yours is based on expediency only.

Haven't we been through this already? I can't force you to act morally. All I can do is to urge you to do so. The choice is yours.

You're right. You can block your ears and shut your eyes and pretend not to see or hear the arguments presented to you. You can go on putting your own pleasure as your number 1 priority, and I can't stop you. But I can condemn you, and those like you, and I can certainly show you up for the hypocrite you are - claiming to care about animals - but only when it doesn't interfere with your pleasure or hobbies.

If you can find a flaw in any of my arguments, I will join your "free thinking" parade. But so far, you have produced no supportable arguments for your position, and haven't made a dent in mine.

Do I want you to share my views on vegetarianism? Of course I do. Thousands of animals will be saved if you get some common sense. And at what cost? A little thinking about what you eat, and a little typing time for me. Sounds like a bargain to me.

 

Hapsburg:

The only country which spells "foetus" and "aluminium" wrongly is the good old US of A.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

TW Scott:

I'm sure I've explained to you before that if all humans became vegetarian, LESS farmland would be needed to support the same human population. So, your argument is a non-starter.

You seem very fond of the naturalistic fallacy, since you seem to rely on it as your main argument. Do you understand the flaws I have previously pointed out in that argument? Or is it that you just prefer to ignore them because believing in the fallacy is a good way to avoid feeling guilty or taking responsibility for your actions? "It's not my fault, Your Honour. Nature made me do it!"

When do the deer you kill become your property? After you kill them, I imagine. So, property is theft, according to you. Animals, of course, have no right to autonomy. If you wish to use them or take possession of them, then you are entitled, unless you are prevented from doing that by another human.

My assessment of your morals has been basically correct all along. It's all "me me me". According to you, your own interests always take precedence, whenever they conflict with the interests of another living being. So, if you're a bit peckish, or you feel manly as you pull the trigger of a gun against an unarmed animal, then the animal's rights count for nothing.

Wrongs go unpunished as long as you commit them. Other people may be punished for evil deeds, but, in your view, you can do no wrong, because your interests trump all others.

This is a very primitive moral system to live by. It is also quite sociopathic.

It is not surprising, given your penchant for the naturalistic fallacy, that you think it is not right to lock criminals up. However, once you realise that I do not regard the naturalistic fallacy as a valid moral argument, you will also understand why I think that inflicting the deprivation of liberty on criminals is justifiable.

What a defeatist attitude you have. You are saying "We can never change anything. We are powerless to change our world in any way, so we may as well not bother trying."

No, I understand now. Since your life is governed by your pleasure, you don't act in a consistent manner, but instead just follow your carnal desires at any particular time. It's not your fault. Nature makes you do it.

Why? Nature made them do it. Didn't it?

Everybody should be able to give reasons for what they believe. Humans are meant to be rational beings. If you believe something is morally right with no reasons, then you are not rational.

I'm listening to you. I just disagree with you, for reasons I have made very clear. You, on the other hand, are getting all defensive, saying you don't need to justify yourself to anybody. Why?

You think that being omnivores has been the only thing which has assisted human survival? No role for technology, language, culture? It's all down to eating meat. Hmmm...

It is strange reasoning indeed that says we must kill animals in order that they may live.



Theoryofrelativity

I'm not vegan, but I know vegans. They seem to be fine, but I don't know the answer for sure.

Certainly, many animals survive on a vegan diet, without supplements, including some apes.

 

TW Scott:

Obviously, population increase would mean we would need more food. But what has that got to do with the relative merits of us being vegetarian or meat eaters? Nothing, as far as I can see.

Please explain.

It's not just in my little head. Do a little research. Google "naturalistic fallacy" and see how many sites pop up, which can explain it for you.

I don't see why. Eating meat doesn't give you any special advantages in the normal world in which we live.

Why is hunting and eating humans wrong, but hunting and eating animals ok? That's just speciesism.

Hmmm... not surprising that you're also religious. Just for fun, here are a few guesses I would make about you. A couple of them may be wrong:

You love hunting and shooting, and probably fishing. You're religious. You support the death penalty. You care for your immediate family, but don't much like other folks. I'm guessing you also vote Republican and live in a state which voted Republican in the last federal election. You support the NRA, if not monetarily then at least in terms of agreeing with their views on guns. You probably don't beleive in giving "handouts" to the underprivileged. You don't know many black people, and you think most poor people deserve to be poor, ultimately, because they just don't work hard enough and take the opportunities available to them in the great US of A. You owe nothing to anybody; as long as you care for your family, that's all that really matters. You've probably always lived in the same state, and seldom, if ever, been overseas. You think America is the greatest country in the world.

Do you hunt them with your bare hands, or do you use a gun? Do they use guns?

Yes, I have.

It is interesting that you say that ALL wrong ought to be punished. But then you also say that you would not consider a bear killing a man to be wrong. I wonder how you would really react if, say, a vicious dog attacked your child, injurying him or her badly. Would you say "Well, the dog hasn't done anything wrong. It was natural for the dog to attack, because it is a carnivore. It was a stronger predator than my daughter, so it's only fair that she should suffer."

In fact, I'm guessing you'd be demanding that the authorities remove the dog and have it put down immediately.

Clearly, we differ on that point. I maintain that wilful, unnecessary harm is morally wrong. So far, you haven't made any attempt to explain how this is a double standard.

Win what? Win a way back to an age where life was "nasty, brutish and short"? Where the strong dominate the weak, and where respect for life is non-existent? I don't want to live in your world, TW.

Now here is an example of a double-standard. You put "humanity" on a pedestal. Other animals are just your property, but humans are mystical, magical beings, and their "humanity" somehow makes them better than everything else.

If embracing your "humanity" means hurting and killing other beings for no other reason than your own pleasure, then I advocate rejecting "humanity" and embracing a higher moral standard. I say, we ought to use our excellent minds to rise above the dictates of our biology and make rational and intelligent choices about how we live and interact with our environment. We don't need to be grunts, driven only by instinct and primitive drives.

Many animals kill members of their own species. To take a rather close example, look at chimpanzees. But then again, I probably should have added "You don't believe in evolution" to my list of your probably qualities above, so you probably won't see how this is relevant.

No, I don't. What do you think is the important distinction between bear and man? Obviously not the difference in intellectual capacity, or the capacity to reason morally, since you advocate that human beings ought not to reason morally, but to act as nature intended, on instinct - just as bears do.

How should I go about it? What would convince you that meat eating was wrong - hypothetically speaking, of course?

 

Theoryofrelativity:

In my experience, it is simply a matter of balance. You can quite happily live on a vegetarian diet if you eat a range of different foods. Eat different kinds of vegetables, rice, pasta, fruit, tofu, mushrooms, etc. Vegetarians also eat eggs and drink milk, though vegans do not.

A person who says "I am a vegetarian ... but I eat fish and chicken" is not a vegetarian at all, for obvious reasons. Most people who say this kind of thing tend to be trying to lose weight or otherwise get healthier, or else they just want to sound cool and different. Many of them "revert" to eating meat at some point (once they are sick of their weight-loss diet, or they are no longer getting mileage from the "strange" aura which surrounds them as vegetarians).

It wouldn't surprise me if she actually needed something that is in chicken. I think people need to listen to what their bodies tell them. If you crave something, it is often for a good reason. That is only my opinion, though.

In this case, perhaps she needed more protein in her diet - or some other nutrient. A vegetarian wouldn't resort to actually eating chicken, usually, but would try to work out what was missing, and find a food which provided it, instead.

 

[bTW Scott:[/b]

I find it endlessly amusing that you ignore all substantive points I make, and instead try to distract from the issues with irrelevancies. Intellectual dishonesty is one of my pet peeves. You really ought to start taking some responsibility and stand up for what you believe, rather than continually trying to hide, in case the hollowness of your views is exposed.

In two consecutive posts, you contradict yourself. First, you assert that animals can't act immorally. Then, in the next post, you say your cat and your dog both know right from wrong, and that therefore animals have morals.

This is just a run around, isn't it? You don't actually know what you believe.

Also, your hypocrisy shines through once again. On the one hand, you say that you don't need to justify your actions to anybody - especially the eating of animals, because you are "superior" to them. And yet, in the next breath, you seek to hold animals to standards which you fail to live up to yourself. How ironic.

I suggest that you should just retire gracefully from this discussion right now, while you still have a modicum of credibility left.

 

finewine:

I agree with Ronny. An unborn baby is undoubtedly human. I also think it should not have the rights of a human adult, unlike Ron.

But you won't starve if you don't eat meat. You can live quite happily on a healthy vegetarian diet.

Who put you on the apex? Yourself. Or maybe you're religious, like TW Scott, so you think God put you at the apex. Convenient, that.

My point here is that, assuming you ARE on the apex of creation, then surely you should have the responsibility of stewardship over the animals over which you have power. You ought to care for them as your God cares for you. Shouldn't you?

Did you read all the stuff on the naturalistic fallacy?

I agree. The question is: whose values are superior and defensible, and whose are self serving and arbitrary?

No. I say that, in some cases (and NOT in all cases, by the way), the interests of the mother are more important than those of her foetus. Whereas, right-to-lifers say the foetus is always more important, in every situation.

In other words, you do it for purely selfish reasons. That is not very moral, if you ask me.

No, there isn't. There are only good arguments and poor arguments.