Of course it is subjective. I mean if you were giving the choice of saving a human life or another animal life which would you choose? I would choose the human life personally.
In that to me the life of a human is worth more.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Animal killing
- Thread starter zenzero
- Start date
Of course it is subjective. I mean if you were giving the choice of saving a human life or another animal life which would you choose? I would choose the human life personally.
In that to me the life of a human is worth more.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
I'm very different from you in this regard, I treat meat as very essential to my diet.
No problem. as far as I recall my post was mainly in reaction to implying that vegetarians are morally superior and that eating meat is immoral.
I agree (as usual) with MSizer. Concepts of morality generally revolve around being kind or helpful to others, while eschewing unkindness and harm. Historically, those with the widest moral compass are generally counted as more moral than the narrow and self centered.
Most of us would consider it immoral if a jungle tribe attacked and murdered another tribe -- man woman and child -- simply for the excitement or glory of it, but the tribesmen would see no
moral problem with this. Their moral universe comprises only members of their own village.
Is our own moral universe that much wider? Most of us are just as tribal; we just have larger 'tribes'. "Us" and "them" are defined by borders and our moral obligations and legal rights don't always apply to foreigners. Yet we count ourselves generally moral.
Those we count as paragons of morality are those with an atypically wide moral compass: great peacemakers, humanitarians and ecumenical religious leaders; those whose 'us' includes all humanity.
By extension, then, couldn't a case be made that those whose moral universe is extra-special, who do unto other sentient species as they would have done to them; who are kind to everything, are more highly developed morally than even the great humanitarians?
Most of us would consider it immoral if a jungle tribe attacked and murdered another tribe -- man woman and child -- simply for the excitement or glory of it, but the tribesmen would see no
moral problem with this. Their moral universe comprises only members of their own village.
Is our own moral universe that much wider? Most of us are just as tribal; we just have larger 'tribes'. "Us" and "them" are defined by borders and our moral obligations and legal rights don't always apply to foreigners. Yet we count ourselves generally moral.
Those we count as paragons of morality are those with an atypically wide moral compass: great peacemakers, humanitarians and ecumenical religious leaders; those whose 'us' includes all humanity.
By extension, then, couldn't a case be made that those whose moral universe is extra-special, who do unto other sentient species as they would have done to them; who are kind to everything, are more highly developed morally than even the great humanitarians?
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
At the end of the day all groups like to claim they are morally superior, I guess some vegetarians are no different. there are many meat eaters who help other sentient species more than those who decide not to eat meat. I see vegetarianism as irrelevant in this regard.
If painting oneself as morally superior is the motivation needed to do something, well that's that.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I have a friend who is much better at recycling then I am. Is he morally superior to me in this area. Yes he is! In all areas no! Being a vegatarian means you use less and have a smaller carbon footprint. So in this respect it is a morally superior choice.
I believe that Nelson Mandela eats meat, would it not be absurd for me to see my self an his moral superior. We all should do our little part to be a better person. For some that means being a vegatarian for others it might be a different moral discipline.
Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
You have a point for all those people that pay and eat meat form large farms that over populate animals and all that. Not all of us eat that crap. We ether hunt or get meat form small local farms that free range there animals. I agree for the most part that those that are Vegetarians have less of a carbon footprint then most people that eat meat. But not all of us are like that. ^_^
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
You are right. I wish more people were like you. Still not eating meat is good for me.
MSizer
MSizer
It indeed in every way applies directly to me, so there was no ignorant assumption.
MSizer
MSizer
Subjectivity and relativity absolutely can not be part of morality. Morality vanishes when these traits are a part of a judgment or decision. The first two moral domains of the five are universal, and they are harm and fairness. Since all concious beings are capable of experiencing harm, it is objective then to say that to cause harm to a concious being is immoral. There is nothing subjective about it. If morals were subjective, then we could say that Hitler was an upstanding guy for being so tenacious in upholding his shared views among the NAZIs of eliminating Jews.
I don't know what you're asking here. If you're asking why it's ok for tigers to kill ungulates but not humans, it's because "ought implies can". Tigers don't have the mental capacity to understand the harm they cause when killing another concious being, therefore they can't be held culpable for doing it. Humans however indeed can understand the greater implications of causing harm to other concious beings, so we don't get away with it IMO.
My whole point is that I don't go around doing so, and being vegetarian (leaning toward vegan) I happen to know a number of others too, and none of them go around thinking they're better than anybody else. If you're asking whether I think I walk a morally high ground compared to a meat eater, then yes, I do think so. Would you tell a human rights activist during legal slavery in america that he shouldn't have been so self righteous and mind his own business about whether others choose to keep slaves?
Name one. I challenge you to find even one.
Fine, by technicality I have to give you that, but my point is that there is no difference IMO between a concious human and a concious animal of any other sort, so you're relying on a technicality which ignores the principle to which I refer. Nice try.
That is all true. What does it have to do with preservation of harm from concious beings? It is not in opposition to anything I've said. On the other hand, it is misleading to people who haven't spent the time reflecting on the moral implications of this topic, because it grants the illusion that killing concious beings is always ok. That's called the naturalistic fallacy. Just becuase something is natural, it doesn't mean it's morally permissible. Murder is natural. That doesn't mean we should do it. Most animals have sex in public. Should we? It would be natural.
Last edited:
The key part there is the "in your opinion" part. Lots of other people will disagree with you there.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
This is my experience also. I feel uncomfortable going over to a new persons home for dinner. I am always fearful that somehow I will insult them by not being able to eat what they serve me. I do not know any vegetarians who rub meat eating in face of others. In fact its just quite the opposite. When I was younger my views on this subject were occasionally ridiculed. This has changed because I think its clear to others that I don't tolerate this type of relationships in my life. My son even keeps it secret at middle school because it's just easier not to deal with the blowback from meat eaters.
My wife works for a labor union. even a progressive organization like this seems to resent ordering veggie food for non-meat eaters.
If you read old threads you will find that in general the meat eaters are more aggressive on this issue on this then we are, yet the claim is that we rub our morals in others faces. It just don't make sense to me unless of coarse you look at it as a psychological defense mechanism.
If they really want you round for dinner they will not mind making a veggie meal for you
.
How so? What makes you think meat eaters are unprincipled? (If that wasn't what you were getting at do you mind clarifying what you meant?)
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
If they really want you round for dinner they will not mind making a veggie meal for you
True, but many people don't understand things like not only do we not eat meat but beef broth is also a no-no and fish is not a vegetable. So many times I just have a don't ask don't tell policy after telling them that I don't eat meat.
Last edited:
Though if someone really did want you round for dinner surely they would make sure what they served you had no meat or products made from animals in it?
I mean it doesn't take much effort to check if ingredients are suitable for vegetarian or not.
People don't realize what ingredients are animal based, though. Look at a loaf of bread or a tortilla -- mono and diglycerides. Look at a jar of pickles or olives -- polysorbate 60 or 80. Many vegans won't eat anything containing sugar, since it's filtered with bone derived charcoal in manufacturing.
Potential animal products are hidden everywhere.
Potential animal products are hidden everywhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
MSizer
MSizer
Yes but vox populi doesn't equal "correct" as Seyorni pointed out. Many people disagree that humans are an evolved species, but that doesn't mean we aren't. It just means many people are mistaken on the matter. Maybe creation/evolution is a bad example because there's so much debate, but the point is that popularity does not define correctness.
To get to the heart of this matter, I would ask what it is about humans that makes us inherently more important than other concious creatures? I admit I have a bit of a bias for long term self interest, so yes, if I were forced to choose between killing an ape and a fly, I'd easily go for the fly, but that doesn't mean I think killing flies is simply ok. There are chimpanzees with higher intelligence levels than some humans. Is it ok to kill humans who are cognitively impaired? If not, by which criteria can it be determined that humans are more important than other conciuos beings?