Ethics:Is Non-veg as wrong as cheating your wife

[Kerr]

Comparing eating meat to cheating seems like a rather weird comparisment. Dont get it, lol. And I am a vegetarian .

 

[crossfire]

I just had a discussion with my friend who said being non-vegetarian is as bad as cheating one's wife.Is this even remotely true ?

:sarcastic
To quote Jesus:

"It’s not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”​

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

:sarcastic
To quote Jesus:

"It’s not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”​

Well Cancer?

 

[rusra02]

I just had a discussion with my friend who said being non-vegetarian is as bad as cheating one's wife.Is this even remotely true ?

I think this points up the need for us to have a reliable moral guide, and I believe the Bible is that guide, "inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16) Does the Bible say that eating meat is sinful or morally wrong? No. Does the Bible say cheating on your wife is sinful or morally wrong? Yes.

 

[Koldo]

The human digestive system is made to consume meat. We have the teeth of omnivorous, and the stomachs and intestines to prove we are built to eat meat. This is a matter of biological fact.
Cheating on one's partner is dishonesty and is breaking bonds of trust. Although our ideals of holding monogamy to the highest standard is largely to blame, the effects of cheating are psychological and comes with a high probability of having roots in broken lines of communication.
The two are not even comparable.

Actually, this is a bad argument.
Appeals to nature are rather weak.

 

[McBell]

His logic-Eating non-veg ends life of a conscious being but having consensual sex (outside of marriage) do not 'kill' anyone.

His issue is with killing a conscious being?
Tell him you only eat meat from animals who have been killed in their sleep.

Problem solved

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually, this is a bad argument.
Appeals to nature are rather weak.

How is pointing out the biological build of our bodies a bad and weak argument? Saying it's a weak argument is like saying constantly moving around is better for us because of the highly mobile structure (another plus for a predatory species) of our bodies is a weak argument.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

How can you measure wrongness?

 

[Koldo]

How is pointing out the biological build of our bodies a bad and weak argument? Saying it's a weak argument is like saying constantly moving around is better for us because of the highly mobile structure (another plus for a predatory species) of our bodies is a weak argument.

Because you ( or at least a considerable number of people ) can live without eating meat.

Telling us what our bodies can do is in no way an argument in favour of doing something. Nor is it an argument to establish the permissibility of an act.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because you ( or at least a considerable number of people ) can live without eating meat.

Telling us what our bodies can do is in no way an argument in favour of doing something. Nor is it an argument to establish the permissibility of an act.

It says it is natural for us to consume meat. Life feeds on life. It is no more "immoral" or "unethical" for us to eat a chicken as it is for a lion to eat a gazelle.

 

[Vinayaka]

Most predators, besides having forward facing eyes, also have larger and sharper canine teeth, stronger digestive juices, claws or talons, and more. We have some of those traits in much more reduced fashions.

Still, I think most people would disagree with the OP.

But it does bring up another general point about human behaviour, and that is how one aspect (in this case vegetarianism, but it can be others, like homosexuality, an ethnic pride, etc.) of life, if allowed to fester will become an overwhelming issue to some. Lobby groups would be powerless without this human trait. Personally I think we're better off if we can strike a balance, and not focus on single issues, whatever that issue may be.

 

[Koldo]

It says it is natural for us to consume meat. Life feeds on life. It is no more "immoral" or "unethical" for us to eat a chicken as it is for a lion to eat a gazelle.

Just because it is natural, it doesn't mean necessarily that it is moral.
Lions are carnivores. We are not.
Plus, even if we were carnivores, it wouldn't mean that eating all types of meat in whatever ammount we wish is moral, because you also can't equate our ability to reason with that of a lion.

 

[dust1n]

I just had a discussion with my friend who said being non-vegetarian is as bad as cheating one's wife.Is this even remotely true ?

A vegetarian with an inflated sense of moral superiority? What a surprise.

 

[Koldo]

I just had a discussion with my friend who said being non-vegetarian is as bad as cheating one's wife.Is this even remotely true ?

To answer your question: Morals are relative.
To the vast majority, no, that is not true. To a very few, yes, that is true.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just because it is natural, it doesn't mean necessarily that it is moral.
Lions are carnivores. We are not.
Plus, even if we were carnivores, it wouldn't mean that eating all types of meat in whatever ammount we wish is moral, because you also can't equate our ability to reason with that of a lion.

Morals, unlike the structure of our naturally intended diets, are unnatural and arbitrarily defined.
And of course you can only compare so much of human behavor to a lions; after all a male lion, when taking on a new female mate, will usually kill her offspring from the other male lion.
But all living animals, from single celled bacteria to the blue whale, eat and consume other living things. Life feeds on life. Even if not directly, a plant even depends upon dead and decayed organic matter to survive. Every living thing is born, dies, and is eaten and consumed by other organisms.

 

[Me Myself]

The thing is it is more moral on my book to not eat animals for gastronomical pleasure, but limit oneself to eat plants for survival and some milk and eggs as they are not inherently harmful.

Morals, unlike the structure of our naturally intended diets, are unnatural and arbitrarily defined.
And of course you can only compare so much of human behavor to a lions; after all a male lion, when taking on a new female mate, will usually kill her offspring from the other male lion.
But all living animals, from single celled bacteria to the blue whale, eat and consume other living things. Life feeds on life. Even if not directly, a plant even depends upon dead and decayed organic matter to survive. Every living thing is born, dies, and is eaten and consumed by other organisms.

Technically speaking, you could survive on fruits, dry seeds and eggs if you wanted the least amount of any kind of dead to sustain you.

Eating plants also kills way less than eating animals because animals feed on plants and you consume more plants that way.

 

[Koldo]

Morals, unlike the structure of our naturally intended diets, are unnatural and arbitrarily defined.
And of course you can only compare so much of human behavor to a lions; after all a male lion, when taking on a new female mate, will usually kill her offspring from the other male lion.
But all living animals, from single celled bacteria to the blue whale, eat and consume other living things. Life feeds on life. Even if not directly, a plant even depends upon dead and decayed organic matter to survive. Every living thing is born, dies, and is eaten and consumed by other organisms.

Indeed. Which in no way disagrees with what i have said.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Technically speaking, you could survive on fruits, dry seeds and eggs if you wanted the least amount of any kind of dead to sustain you.

That is true, but on a global scale (or even locally), how many people do you suppose it is even an option for? I know many people, here in America, who depend on hunting to provide sufficient food for their families.
Instead of a "morally superior" idea that some like to attach to eating only plants, it should rather be viewed as the mark of society that has sufficient food to feed it's members without meat. For many, meat consumption is survival.

 

[Quintessence]

I just had a discussion with my friend who said being non-vegetarian is as bad as cheating one's wife.Is this even remotely true ?

From the standpoint of environmental impacts, being a non-vegetarian is significantly worse than adultery. Production and consumption of meat uses a large amount of resources compared to non-meat products. Adultery has virtually no significant environmental impact whatsoever, unless a child comes of it. Then, it's probably a bit of a toss-up depending on the lifestyle that child has.

 

[Me Myself]

That is true, but on a global scale (or even locally), how many people do you suppose it is even an option for? I know many people, here in America, who depend on hunting to provide sufficient food for their families.
Instead of a "morally superior" idea that some like to attach to eating only plants, it should rather be viewed as the mark of society that has sufficient food to feed it's members without meat. For many, meat consumption is survival.

I most places meat is more expensive than plants, so in most places, no, meat eating is for gastronomical pleasure and habit.

As I said, a plant eating diet still kills less than a meat eating diet because a meat eating diet requires breeding a lot of meat that will eat way more plants than what it will supply in food.

I do have an interest and concern for morality, so even as I underrstand is subjective, I dont treat it as if it had to be arbitrary. I think empathy and compassion go a long way and it is good to extend it to other species whenever possible,