Morality is about what defines the perimeters of being moral or immoral. The point of introducing the meat industry was to include a possible example of a current trend that a more civilized future civilization could deem as highly immoral .... much like back in the day, slavery or blatant racism went down without batting an eyelid. IOW the problem of drawing a "perfect" morality from some sort of surface dialectic reaction to extremes is that today's so-called brilliance is tomorrow's embarrassment. The exceptional nature of the DoI however is that it provides a more perennial field for fine tuning morality since it doesn't partake of material inequality as the integral identity of "man" (now broadened to "human", with the possibility of extending even further to "life"). IOW transcendental treatises like the DoI provide a framework for continued refinement ... unlike say communist (or even capitalist) manifestos which sort of begin at the point of everyone patting themselves on the back for a job well done.
It may be unethical to kill animals when there are viable alternatives, but it is not immoral. Morality by definition is primarily concerned with humans.
Hence humans killing animals can analyzed in terms of moral and/or ethical transgressions. I think you will find that both ethics and morality deal exclusively with humans. Animals have no choice but to act according to their nature, and thus the scope for their self improvement or degradation is not so much an issue. To be fair, I was running with "moral" because you introduced the term. I was using it as interchangeable with "ethics", although if you want to split hairs, it would probably be more correct to use the word "ethics" as it relates to the DoI .... although it really depends on which of the several ways you want to split hairs on what constitutes morals and what constitutes ethics.
Plants are living beings as well , where is the morality of killing plant life ? This is what astounds me about , vegans and vegetarians , plants are okay to kill because they have no " feeling " , we know this is far from the truth .
This may be a strawman. I doubt vegans believe that the reason its okay to eat plants is because of their lack of "feeling". But it's not up to either of us to put words in their mouths. What we must do is ask them what their rationale is.
I suspect it's a little more thought-through than you're giving them credit for. But I don't know either.
From a spiritual perspective, yes, its all amassing more karma ... but then it becomes a question of what manner of actions accrue less karma (or even no karma, if you want to examine this topic more thoroughly) than others. If you stick a knife in something and it runs around squealing in a fashion identical to one's self, it doesn't take a very developed sense of empathy to distinguish that at the opposite end of the scale from harvesting grains and vegetables.
Well there you go . Plants respond to threats as animals do , we just don't hear it . And plants also respond to threats by chemical communication between themselves . You can imagine what goes on between plants when a machine harvests corn , wheat etc .
The fact that we have to imagine it rather than simply directly see and hear it and use the same tools, ranging from knives to mops, as we would to carry out a murder, proves my point.
Anyway , what does god want ? For us to be subservient . To this god . And control us psychologically . To control our free will and our want to know our ancient past . For our ancient past , the knowledge and understanding of our ancient past leads to Humanities freedom from any god(s) .
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-and-smell-and-respond . plants are not dumb
I know. The fact that we don't need a science to devolop empathy for other living entities (but rather the paraphernalia of a murder scene) proves my point.
