eating Meat? good or bad

[MSizer]

It is founded. It may or may not be completely true. But what is the difference? It is without a doubt true that plants and animals live. So, let's say plants can't feel pain. What you're saying is that if something doesn't suffer, even if it's alive, it's OK to eat it?

If you were forced to choose between smashing a cat or a tulip with a hammer, which would you choose?

Indeed, sentience is the founding critereon for morality.

 

[Magic Man]

If you were forced to choose between smashing a cat or a tulip with a hammer, which would you choose?

The cat, but only because I have more in common with it. If I was forced to step on a roach or smash a tulip, I'd choose stepping on the roach.

 

[MSizer]

The cat, but only because I have more in common with it. If I was forced to step on a roach or smash a tulip, I'd choose stepping on the roach.

Then your justification for making moral deliberations is unsystematic. Sorry, I know that sounds really condescending, but I'm not meaning it that way, I'm just arguing objectively.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

There really is no justifiable moral reason to slaughter animals for meat. I think this thread has demonstrated that well. That being said, is it otherwise moral to eat meat, but not slaughter it?

 

[Magic Man]

Then your justification for making moral deliberations is unsystematic. Sorry, I know that sounds really condescending, but I'm not meaning it that way, I'm just arguing objectively.

No, my justification is the same as every other person's. I would choose to save my wife's life before I save yours. I would choose to save my dogs' lives before saving the lives of some humans. We all ascribe more value to things that we have more in common with or that give us more pleasure. It's inconsistent to not eat animals because of the harm it causes but to then have an exterminator come and take care of a roach infestation in your house. I merely acknowledge this and accept it.

 

[Magic Man]

There really is no justifiable moral reason to slaughter animals for meat. I think this thread has demonstrated that well.

Why do you think that?

 

[Valjean]

So, you would rather suffer every day for years before being killed, rather than be treated well, live a decent life into adulthood, and then be killed without even knowing it?

A lot of presumptions here.
Most food animals enjoy the worst of both options. They 'suffer every day' plus are killed as soon as they reach marketable size, with little concession to knowledge of their fate.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well mball if we know that animals are living beings that feel pain like we do, and we base our morality on what causes another pain or harm, it would be hypocritical to leave animals out of that equation. The only possible way it could be justified is to take the Christian view, that animals don't have souls like people do.

 

[Valjean]

Why do you think that?

Because one can enjoy a nutritious, ecologically low-impact and low cost diet without exploiting animals.

 

[MSizer]

No, my justification is the same as every other person's. I would choose to save my wife's life before I save yours. I would choose to save my dogs' lives before saving the lives of some humans. We all ascribe more value to things that we have more in common with or that give us more pleasure. It's inconsistent to not eat animals because of the harm it causes but to then have an exterminator come and take care of a roach infestation in your house. I merely acknowledge this and accept it.

If that were true, then I would have a moral obligation to always favour the wellbeing of white people over those of all other races. And canadians over all other nationalities and so on....

 

[Breathe]

Broccoli, calorie for calorie, contains more protein than steak, and Americans already consume toxic amounts of protein.

Toxic amounts of protein? I've never heard these two words together before! Can you explain it?


I'm trying to be vegetarian. At the moment I'm more flexitarian, but I'd like to strive for vegetarianism. I feel it's healthier and more ethical. I know I wouldn't enjoy being farmed and then strung up and killed for people to munch on my corpse.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

To me Odion, I accept what the Buddha taught on the matter. It's ethical to eat meat, but against the dharma to slaughter it yourself. The more I think about why that is, why it's unethical to slaughter the animal yourself, the more I realize, because it's like murder. The Buddha obviously believed killing an animal had karmic implications as much as killing a human would.

 

[tarasan]

OK, this thread was started by my invitation, and I agreed to state my case on the matter, so please bear with me on this long post, because it takes a lot of groundwork to establish the argument properly.

First of all, I'm going to treat "good or bad" from a moral perspective exlclusively.

My thesis is that eating meat is immoral except in the rare case that you can obtain it from a wild animal that has died of accidental or natural cause.

Premises:

1. Morality is based on our potential to cause existential harm to other concious beings. For example, we don't consider it immoral to toss a rock into a pond because neither the rock nor the pond have the capacity to suffer either physically nor emotionally. Tossing a baby into a pond is clearly immoral, as the baby would suffer.

2. Moral deliberations consist of emotional components including disgust, contempt and anger, but reason should override such rudimentary justifications using a systematic set of principles and values.

3. Sometimes moral values come into conflict, and in such cases, we must either turn to deontology or utilitinariism to decide which of the two values in conflict overrides the other.

4. Harm is inflicted when you inhibit a sentient being's capability to flourish (flourish meaning to forge a satisfying life). Examples of inhibiting a creature's capacity to flourish would be to inflict significant physical pain, to inhibit it's necessary physical territory, to inhibit it from participating in their natural social environments (if it applies to the given species in question), to inhibit a humans from participating in culture and recreation (it's not that likely that other creatures need those things, but humans need them) and there are many other examples.

5. All concious beings have the capacity to suffer at least physically, and many of them emotionally.

6. To act in a morally impermissible way is to unnecessarily inflict harm on a being.

7. Killing an animal abruptly inhibits its capability to forge a satisfying life, as well as often induces physical and emotional pain during the killing process.

8. Humans are omnivores, therefore humans are able to choose a vetarian diet. Since plants don't have the necessary neural structures to feel pain much less experience emotion, eating plants is morally permissible.

9. Since humans can choose non-sentient beings for their diet, it is immoral to choose otherwise.

Just to be pre-emptive, a common argument is that it is natural to eat meat. This may be so, but this does not make it morally permissible. It is also natural to fight, but it's still immoral to do so (except of course in certain exceptional cases). Also, the fact that other creatures eat meat is also not an argument in favour of humans doing so, since some other animals don't have a healthy alternative to meat eating, nor do they posess the mental capacities necessary for understanding the effects of their actions on their prey. We do however understand, so we are responsible for our actions.

Sorry for the long post, but it was necessary to substantiate my claim.

thanks for coming onto the thread Msizer I appreciate this, and you were right I havnt thought it through, so I really appreciate you stating your agruement clearly, seeing as in i havnt really done much homework on teh subject I think Ill just sit back and watch, but this is a good arguement.

 

[tarasan]

And thank you for everyone else who is stating thier opinion.

:angel2:

 

[Breathe]

Good point Yosef.

Though, I feel more as though that not slaughtering the animal yourself is a bit of the problem: people don't identify that lump of red/white meat with what was once a living animal. I think a lot of the general populace wouldn't want to eat the meat of an animal they'd seen slaughtered.

 

[Magic Man]

A lot of presumptions here.
Most food animals enjoy the worst of both options. They 'suffer every day' plus are killed as soon as they reach marketable size, with little concession to knowledge of their fate.

That's a little dishonest, though. We were talking about being considerate to them. We all know that mass-produced meat is not treated considerately, so obviously we're not talking about that.

 

[Magic Man]

Well mball if we know that animals are living beings that feel pain like we do, and we base our morality on what causes another pain or harm, it would be hypocritical to leave animals out of that equation. The only possible way it could be justified is to take the Christian view, that animals don't have souls like people do.

No, the way it is justified is that we are part of ecosystem where living things feed on other living things. You can inject sentience or anything else you want into that, but it's not necessary.

 

[Magic Man]

Because one can enjoy a nutritious, ecologically low-impact and low cost diet without exploiting animals.

And??

 

[Magic Man]

If that were true, then I would have a moral obligation to always favour the wellbeing of white people over those of all other races. And canadians over all other nationalities and so on....

Nope.

 

[Valjean]

Toxic amounts of protein? I've never heard these two words together before! Can you explain it?


I'm trying to be vegetarian. At the moment I'm more flexitarian, but I'd like to strive for vegetarianism. I feel it's healthier and more ethical. I know I wouldn't enjoy being farmed and then strung up and killed for people to munch on my corpse.

Protein can be metabolically costly, Odion.
Proteins are complex molecules that take a lot of chemistry to reduce to usable units. One example: protein metabolism lowers blood pH. The chemistry is probaby too complex to outline here, but if you're interested any physiology textbook would explain the steps.
To buffer the acid pH the body pulls calcium from the bones. This works well, short term, but a continual high protein diet can decalcify bones. This is why osteoporosis is common in the West but almost unknown in sub saharan Africa, where diets are much lower in protein.
protein metabolism also produces breakdown products like urea that put a strain on the kidneys, leading to renal failure in the long run.