Meat Eaters = Selfish (Steve & Bill)

[McBell]

Eating meat is hypocritical. It involves a violation of principles we, consciously or unconsciously, accept as moral absolutes.

This is nothing more than a bold faced unsubstantiated claim with little to no bearing in reality.

Care to try again?

 

[Valjean]

This isn't a question of what's natural, but what's moral -- they're not always the same.

I'm speaking of the Principle of Equal Consideration.
If we recognize self-interest in humans and the concomitant right to moral consideration, why do we not recognize the same in non-human animals? What qualities do we base our recognition of moral consideration on that apply uniquely to humans?

To be morally consistent we must either exclude some humans from moral consideration or include some non-humans. This is what my reference to hypocrisy referred to.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This isn't a question of what's natural, but what's moral -- they're not always the same.

I'm speaking of the Principle of Equal Consideration.
If we recognize self-interest in humans and the concomitant right to moral consideration, why do we not recognize the same in non-human animals? What qualities do we base our recognition of moral consideration on that apply uniquely to humans?

To be morally consistent we must either exclude some humans from moral consideration or include some non-humans. This is what my reference to hypocrisy referred to.

This^

 

[Father Heathen]

This isn't a question of what's natural, but what's moral -- they're not always the same.

I'm speaking of the Principle of Equal Consideration.
If we recognize self-interest in humans and the concomitant right to moral consideration, why do we not recognize the same in non-human animals? What qualities do we base our recognition of moral consideration on that apply uniquely to humans?

The quality of being sapient. That was easy. Also, I don't trust your sense of "morality". No offense.

 

[McBell]

... I don't trust your sense of "morality"....

Especially when it is so arbitrarily assigned.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

This isn't a question of what's natural, but what's moral -- they're not always the same.

I'm speaking of the Principle of Equal Consideration.
If we recognize self-interest in humans and the concomitant right to moral consideration, why do we not recognize the same in non-human animals? What qualities do we base our recognition of moral consideration on that apply uniquely to humans?

To be morally consistent we must either exclude some humans from moral consideration or include some non-humans. This is what my reference to hypocrisy referred to.

I aplaud your principle, but don't think you can force it on me. If I claim your principle but then don't follow it, then I am a hypocrite. But since I don't claim your principle and reject any efforts on your part to force your principle on me, I also reject your claims of hypocrisy.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The quality of being sapient.

Is it okay to slay and eat babies alive? The mentally challenged that have no cure alive?

 

[McBell]

Is it okay to slay and eat babies alive? The mentally challenged that have no cure alive?

Sure.
though I suspect that their families would have some sorta problem with it.

Them pesky emotions.

 

[Father Heathen]

Is it okay to slay and eat babies alive?

:eat:

 

[Averroes]

Why should I consider a cow when it (the cow) is a prey and I (the human) am an apex predator? Like I mentioned earlier why not consider the plant who may have some ability to transmit emotion through some sort of vibration....? Does it bother you that I season my meat or is that I may hunt for my food? Or is it that I eat meat altogether?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why should I consider a cow when it (the cow) is a prey and I (the human) am an apex predator? Like I mentioned earlier why not consider the plant who may have some ability to transmit emotion through some sort of vibration....? Does it bother you that I season my meat or is that I may hunt for my food? Or is it that I eat meat altogether?

1) Please prove that the plant may have emotion.

2) As far as I learned, plants pack energy, and by picking a tomato from a plant saves the plant from harvesting more energy on a tomato which absorbed the energy from the plant.

 

[Me Myself]

Why should I consider a cow when it (the cow) is a prey and I (the human) am an apex predator? Like I mentioned earlier why not consider the plant who may have some ability to transmit emotion through some sort of vibration....? Does it bother you that I season my meat or is that I may hunt for my food? Or is it that I eat meat altogether?

Because we have no reason to believe plants have emotions and most of the world would acknowledge that most definetely animals have emotions.

 

[Averroes]

1) Please prove that the plant may have emotion.

2) As far as I learned, plants pack energy, and by picking a tomato from a plant saves the plant from harvesting more energy on a tomato which absorbed the energy from the plant.

I cant peove a plant has feelings its just an analogy. I am sayibg hypothetically what if a spinach plant had some sort of ability to "feel" would that make a difference to a vegetarian? I mean why is it peoblematic that I eat steak or is the peoblem the way I eat it?

 

[Averroes]

Because we have no reason to believe plants have emotions and most of the world would acknowledge that most definetely animals have emotions.

SEALS have emotion and a shark has no problem eating it

 

[Me Myself]

I cant peove a plant has feelings its just an analogy. I am sayibg hypothetically what if a spinach plant had some sort of ability to "feel" would that make a difference to a vegetarian? I mean why is it peoblematic that I eat steak or is the peoblem the way I eat it?

Because the animal was not "hypothetically " able to feel pain. It was LITERALY able to feel pain.:sarcastic

 

[Me Myself]

SEALS have emotion and a shark has no problem eating it

Many animals don´t have problems eating their own babies. Is there a point here or do you actually extract your morality from animal planet?

 

[Valjean]

The quality of being sapient. That was easy. Also, I don't trust your sense of "morality". No offense.

Could you explain what you mean by "sapient?"
I assume you're not just using it as a synonym for intelligent, as the intelligence ranges of humans and other animals often overlap.

I aplaud your principle, but don't think you can force it on me. If I claim your principle but then don't follow it, then I am a hypocrite. But since I don't claim your principle and reject any efforts on your part to force your principle on me, I also reject your claims of hypocrisy.

Jeez, Trey. Keep your shirt on, thou doth protest too much.
No-one's trying to force anything on you, but I am curious weather you exclude humans from moral consideration and, if not, what qualities you base your consideration on.

SEALS have emotion and a shark has no problem eating it

I don't see your point here, Averroes. When did sharks become moral agents?

 

[Viker]

This isn't a question of what's natural, but what's moral -- they're not always the same.

I'm speaking of the Principle of Equal Consideration.
If we recognize self-interest in humans and the concomitant right to moral consideration, why do we not recognize the same in non-human animals? What qualities do we base our recognition of moral consideration on that apply uniquely to humans?

To be morally consistent we must either exclude some humans from moral consideration or include some non-humans. This is what my reference to hypocrisy referred to.

If it can reason with me, it is not on the menu. I have a policy of kill for survival, kill quickly and mercifully. I am very consistent with this as it applies to self defense with humans, too.

a) Kill only for survival. ( I have sat down and calculated this - it is cheaper for me )
b) Kill only those that can not or will not reason with me under necessary circumstances. I'm not equivocating an elk with an armed home invader, but neither are in the criteria for unreasonable to kill. Just as shooting an unarmed non-belligerent man down over an argument is not reasonable, even if he was unreasonable, it was just a spat ( no need - no kill). Hunting out of season and for no other previously mentioned purpose is unreasonable.
c) Kill quickly as possible. Speed is mercy.

So there it is. Some animals, some humans, some preferential, some deemed necessary. Even in the case where I choose not to kill to eat cats and dogs is no different than a guy choosing who he hangs out with tonight.

It's really no different than a bear mentality, humans are not typically on the menu. It is a well noted preference. They only attack for perceived territorial violations or if threatened. Occasionally they have killed humans for food but then only out of desperation. Yet, it is a proficient predator as well as a scavenger and omnivorous. I do not think there is any thing special that separates us from animals making us a higher species. Often some of the people who hunt/kill animals and those who refrain believe we are separate from animals, we are either higher up the moral,evolutionary,spiritual ladder or some likewise excuse. We are animals.

 

[Madhuri]

No I'm mostly drawing a parallel rather than making a justification (because I don't think meat eating needs justification). It is perfectly possible to see a distinct separation between humans and animals and in the rights and responsibilities to each.

Additionally there is, throughout history just as many "natural" instances of highly functional civilizations. Having our brains means thinking and coming to conclusions on our own, yes, and drawing moral lines, yes, but being against slavery, rape, and colonization doesn't by necessity lead to being a vegetarian by any means.

I too wish man would stop abusing animals, that is not, to me, the same as stopping eating animals.

You are right. Our ability to rationalise and draw moral lines and even hold compassion does not necessarily lead to being a vegetarian. But neither does it lead us to give women equal rights as men, or to conclude that slavery is immoral or any other such thing. There were very good, intelligent and compassionate people who owned slaves and thought it justifiable. One can come to any conclusion he or she wishes and still have all these wonderful qualities. It's rather subjective, is it not?

That is why the question of animal rights is part of philosophy and ethical studies, because there is no right or wrong answer. There are subjective opinions based on our cultural upbringing, our biological needs and nature, our life experiences etc.

It is my argument that for many in the modern world it is not necessary to eat meat. If something is not necessary, then it is a privilege. But it is a privilege we take at the expense of another. And while the expense may not be so great upon a non-human animal as it is upon a human animal, there is still a great expense. It is then up to the individual to decide if his desires outweigh the suffering of those animals.

Unfortunately, I am not certain that it is realistic to imagine a world where we farm animals for food but do not cause abuse. The killing of any creature is abusive unless conducted under very strict guidelines. But I do not recon that humane death will ever occur in the current world conditions where so many animals must be slaughtered daily. Even the line up of animals as they prepare for death is horrible as they seem to know what is coming and react very badly. There is nothing good or nice about this business and I cannot imagine that a person with compassion could witness it and be unaffected. But now I am straying...

 

[Madhuri]

Elaborate? We are omnivores so are our ancestors wrong too?

That depends. Did they have any choice and did they have our current knowledge and awareness?
Keep in mind that we tend to consider these ancestors as savages, who killed their neighbours, each other, and often even consumed human flesh. I do not believe their situation can be fairly compared with our own.