Sorry for taking so long to get back to you..
Some silly comparisons there. Do you honestly think a human can commit rape and cold blooded murder and not have something emotionally and psychologically wrong with them?
How many studies have been done recently on cannibalistic societies? How do you know that the people in those communities we emotionally or psychologically scarred? In fact, how do we know that the level of psychological harm caused through killing humans isn't greatly to do with the fact that murder is considered a horrible act in almost every culture? The kind of distress a person experiences from committing such an act seems to reflect just how much they believe it is wrong and how they will be perceived by the other people in their society. I guess we need to start studying some cannibals.
As for rape, I do not think that there would have to be something psychologically wrong. Men have been raping women for the entirety of human history. In our contemporary society, it is considered wrong and men are more aware and caring of the effects their actions may have on women. So today, with these understandings and changed culture, it may take an unstable man to commit such an act.
But hunting prey for sustenance is a healthy, normal biological drive and function. And of course human culture isn't a gauge for something being natural or healthy, as human culture is often the exact opposite. I never suggested that it was.
Is the biological drive to hunt and kill prey not simply come about from necessity? I can honestly say that I have never had such an urge, nor such a fantasy, or any such related inclination. In fact, being a vegetarian, I have happened to know many vegetarians and can tell you that for them, hunting and killing animals is neither a pleasing or natural desire or urge and it also, in a number of cases, has caused psychological and emotional harm to those who were unfortunate enough to participate. In fact, the trauma of seeing and participating in the killing of animal is one reason why many people have become vegetarian.
This differs greatly to other animals, like cats for example, who despite there being no necessity to hunt (if their owner feed them well) still have the urge to hunt and kill.
As a result, I am highly sceptical of arguments that claim humans in general have urges to hunt and kill. I find this to be a very relative human experience, one influenced by a number of factors. Necessity being a big one.
Neither did I suggest that something being unnatural was immoral.
No, but you are arguing that if something is natural then it must also be moral. Wouldn't that imply that if something is unnatural that it is immoral? That is why I included unnatural aspects of our society in my argument.
My main argument is that just because something is natural, does not mean that it is moral. If hunting animals for food were a necessity, then one could argue very well that it is moral- I believe that when it comes to saving one's own life, almost anything can be justified, including killing another human being. But if hunting and killing animals is not a necessity, then the act is not moral because what you are doing is causing suffering for your own personal (selfish) satisfaction. And this is the crux of the concept of morality. To give consideration to others, in terms of negative and positive consequences of actions and intentions. And morality is not limited to humans.
What a vegetarian (many, though not all) does is make the decision to extend his moral consideration to animals, recognising that to kill for food in his or her situation is not necessary. Many of these people have natural affectionate inclinations toward animals, recognising that other species are not too different from humans after all and caring about the suffering that they experience, just as a human would (empathy).
I can perhaps understand how you may come away from this discussion and still feel justified in eating your meat- and I won't judge you negatively. But I do not understand how you could come away still feeling that the vegetarian's reasoning is 'baseless'.
