Ethical to breed animals for its only purpose to be eaten?

[michel]

Oh dear; I'm getting involved in yet another thread I would be better off keeping clear of; I don't know, maybe there's a bit of a rebel in my brain this morning..............

No, I do not think it is ethical to breed animals for the purpose to eat them; neither do I think it ethical to grow anything for the purpose of eating it.

Someone design a nutritious 'pill' to replace all essential ingredients of food Protein, Carbohydrates, vitamins.and I'll be the first in the queue to buy it. Until then, I don't see I have much choice. Left to nature, there would never be enough Meat and milk were it not for those who 'breed to kill for food'.

This is My opinion only but it almost strikes me that the question has only one possible answer, and that is 'No'; anyone who says anything different is manipulating his own mind into finding a justification. Oh, I do hate being confrontational!!!

 

[almifkhar]

i think it is fine so long as the animals are allowed to live a happy existance before they are chosen for death. the way the corporate farms operate is disusting. to treat another living being the way they do angers me and they need to be put out of business. and a good way of doing this is by buying meat either straight from the farm or dealing with small stores who insist on good treatment of the animals. besides the meat is better and it is fresh this way.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

i agree with almifkar. part of me thinks is a bit wrong, the other part wants to eat kosher. i mean, i love meat, its kinda with me. but on the other hand, its inhumane treatment.

ill just have to go buddhist and recite a small prayer before the carcass so that my good wishes are with it's soul....

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I gave up meat and alcohol for holy week and I am losing my mind . I can't wait till Monday for a beer and steak!

 

[Ardhanariswar]

actually a decon told our class that sunday is a day of rest, and therefore we can go back to eating meat or chocolate or rice or whatever you gave up, just for one day. interesting, hah?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

actually a decon told our class that sunday is a day of rest, and therefore we can go back to eating meat or chocolate or rice or whatever you gave up, just for one day. interesting, hah?

You mean rest from whatever you gave up for Lent? If so, this is interesting and personally I would verify this with the preist or with another deacons. However, as I understand it Lent is not designed to be a strict law but a voluntary obstaining from things. It's like a fast - if you actually keep it you will have far greater benefits. I would encourage anyone to keep Lent for the whole time as it is more beneficial. But if you break it, it's not the end of the world or anything.

 

[john313]

You mean rest from whatever you gave up for Lent? If so, this is interesting and personally I would verify this with the preist or with another deacons. However, as I understand it Lent is not designed to be a strict law but a voluntary obstaining from things. It's like a fast - if you actually keep it you will have far greater benefits. I would encourage anyone to keep Lent for the whole time as it is more beneficial. But if you break it, it's not the end of the world or anything.

if the rewards are far greater for giving up things like meat, alcohol, smoking, or drugs for Lent, imagine the rewards for giving them up for good. that must be amazing.

 

[Valjean]

Careful -- you're making the dilettants uncomfortable, John.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There is an ethical side to it, certainly. And anyone claiming "we're omnivores, it's what we're supposed to eat!" - think on this: we're also "supposed" to expend the energies required to go after our own food, we're also "supposed" to be a productive part of the Earth's ecosystems as a whole. But what goes on today is a mockery of our instinctual, Earth-bound and natural selves. We expend no energies to obtain the meat we eat - and we consume TONS more of it than would be garnered in a day's worth of hunting and gathering as it is "supposed" to be. And then we wonder (as if it were some great, cosmic mystery - "why me?!??!") why we have health problems later in life. So many of us gluttons without even realizing it - even the ones of us who look to be in "okay" shape. Hell, I am a vegan and even I am to blame for over-indulgence and taking advantage of the convenience of modern food production.

How about this - would it be okay for a human to raise another human being for consumption? And the answer is, of course not. In fact, the idea is abhorrent. Why does the idea become so much less abhorrent when you replace it with another life form?

 

[suncowiam]

Anyone see Modest Mouse's music video for float on? it made me realize how barbaric it was. im gradually getting off eating meat. I find it hypocritical that we love animals and all, yet we eat them.

is it right? I would appriciate your thoughts!

Do you love plants and eat them?

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, this thread is a real old timer!
Breeding flora & fauna for the single purpose of eating them is not just ethical, it's also efficient & tasty.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not to mention the freshly chopped up and sautted buffet left behind by the active farm equipment during planting season for all the wildlife to enjoy.

 

[Yerda]

Do you love plants and eat them?

Who doesn't?

 

[Revoltingest]

Who doesn't?

I've seen the bumper sticker...
I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals....I hate plants.

 

[LuisDantas]

Anyone see Modest Mouse's music video for float on? it made me realize how barbaric it was. im gradually getting off eating meat. I find it hypocritical that we love animals and all, yet we eat them.

is it right? I would appriciate your thoughts!

It is ethical to do what we must in order to live in the best harmony we can conceive of and attain.

Which means that if we can confortably make do without raising cattle, then ethically we should indeed give up meat eating.

The plain fact however is that not everyone does, and there is a very real and significant downside in attempting to pressure people into changing their eating habits. It is not our call to decide what they should eat, and we have little control or condition to guess what the consequences to them will be. People can become very troubled under such circunstances, and their trouble will have very Adharmic consequences.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which means that if we can confortably make do without raising cattle, then ethically we should indeed give up meat eating.

There's a very strong argument against that.....

 

[Twilight Hue]

Aside from the shock value by people who like portraying the worst of the worse to make points for the arguments , it begs the question if animals would be better off living a life that ends typically in starvation and or getting ripped apart alive in the wild compared to how a good number of humans kill their animals for food.

 

[suncowiam]

There's a very strong argument against that.....

I have the stomach flu at the moment but your argument sure looks good.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have the stomach flu at the moment but your argument sure looks good.

It will be a far more compelling argument when you feel better, & your appetite returns.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What an ancient thread! Newbies really need to pay attention to thread dates before posting in them!