Meat Eaters = Selfish (Steve & Bill)

[Madhuri]

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?

I don't know about you but I tend to feel compassionate toward the sentient. You know, those who can think and feel.
I do not take seriously any arguments that bring up the subject of plants. By doing so, you are either claiming that plants have feelings and suffer, or that you do not actually understand the ethical arguments regarding animal rights.

I do not agree that plants think or experience emotions. And I am neither here nor there regarding the existence of sentience within plant life. It shall have to be proven to me first.

And quite frankly, since you are an apex predator, why have any moral consideration at all? Clearly you have all the right you want to use and abuse the earth without any consideration at all. And why stop there? It is also in the human nature to compete with and destroy other human beings. So that is absolutely justified. Morality is not necessary at all really.

 

[Madhuri]

SEALS have emotion and a shark has no problem eating it

A shark is not a human and yes that IS the point. To make such a comparison is ignoring the particular qualities of the human, which includes the capacity to have a problem with it.

 

[Madhuri]

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.

This alone is quite respectable in most people's opinion. The issue though is that people like myself do not agree that eating meat is necessary for survival for most in the modern world.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

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.

You most certainly want me to keep my shirt on, nobody wants to see that.

As to the discussion, you comment was general and directed towards all humanity. If that wasn't your intent then you should have phrased it differently. Any time someone starts telling me what my morality should be I get defensive. My morality is mine to decide.

As for your question, I would have to know more about what your definition of moral consideration is before I could answer.

 

[Viker]

This alone is quite respectable in most people's opinion. The issue though is that people like myself do not agree that eating meat is necessary for survival for most in the modern world.

I respect that opinion as well. I just do not trust most of the modern world enough to join it's dining habits. Once I reach a certain point in my life ( hopefully soon ) I plan on living mostly off the land I have in the country with very little employment and lots of country boy grit. I won't divorce the modern world entirely. It will be more like a separation with occasional visitations. The modern world in it's full effect gives me the blues.

 

[Me Myself]

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...

:clap:clap:clap:clap

This alone is quite respectable in most people's opinion. The issue though is that people like myself do not agree that eating meat is necessary for survival for most in the modern world.

It´s barely something about agreement. It is a biological fact. We don´t need to eat meat to survive. If you are aware of this and are able to put vegetarian food on your tasble but chooses not to, odds are that you are doing so for a) habit and b) gastronomical pleasure.

To say habit and gastronomical pleasure is good enough reason for such pain of sentient beings... come on, you can do better than that

 

[Valjean]

The apex predator argument strikes me as just a variation of the might makes right apology.
A cow isn't able to resist our predation, ergo, the relationship is just and proper. Substitute blacks, native Americans or missionaries in Polynesia and the exploitative quality becomes clearer.

 

[Drolefille]

The apex predator argument strikes me as just a variation of the might makes right apology.
A cow isn't able to resist our predation, ergo, the relationship is just and proper. Substitute blacks, native Americans or missionaries in Polynesia and the exploitative quality becomes clearer.

And yet they're still not humans. Sorry but equating the two is something I find fundamentally flawed about the argument that people should ethically be vegetarian.

The fact that the cow doesn't exist at all as a species or an individual without humans isn't even the real reason. It's just that we're predators, omnivorous by nature and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

[Valjean]

Again, Nature and morality are different magisteria.

 

[Drolefille]

Again, Nature and morality are different magisteria.

And humans and animals are not equivalent.

Either we're the same essentially and therefore cannot be immoral for our natures or we're somehow different and therefore operate on different rules including ethical treatment.

 

[Father Heathen]

Again, Nature and morality are different magisteria.

So how do you rationalize and substantiate your morality? What makes it more than just random, arbitrary nonsense?

 

[Me Myself]

So how do you rationalize and substantiate your morality? What makes it more than just random, arbitrary nonsense?

Morality is subjective. Compasion should rule it, and it stays subjective nevertheless. As an agnostic with a (for what I have read) moral compass, wouldn´t you agree?

 

[Father Heathen]

Morality is subjective. Compasion should rule it.

As should logic.

As an agnostic with a (for what I have read) moral compass, wouldn´t you agree?

Yes, so why is the natural diet of a omnivorous species of great ape considered "immoral"?

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, so why is the natural diet of a omnivorous species of great ape considered "immoral"?

2 things:

1- It is "natural" for animals (including chimpanzees and of course, humans) to fight over territory and kill each other because of it. As humans though, we can rise above this "natural" inclination of us by using our also "natural" inclination towards peace. As humans, we can choose a great deal of our natures.

2-Because being omnivorous only means that we can eat meat. Not that we must to survive. If we can live without meat, why should we murder animals only because we want to taste this meat? There are exceptions, but most non vegetarians are in a perfect position to stop eating meat and still be healthy/healthier.

So I do would consider it more moraly correct to have compassion of the animals that we don´t even need to kill instead of puting our gastronomical pleasure before their suffering.

 

[Valjean]

And humans and animals are not equivalent.

Perhaps not physically or morphologically 'equivalent" (= identical?), but many animals do exhibit the features we use in determining moral obligation so, reasonably, must be included -- Principal of Equal Application.

So how do you rationalize and substantiate your morality? What makes it more than just random, arbitrary nonsense?

I just incorporate what's already in place. If characteristics A, B and C are currently used to determine moral obligation, then anyone exhibiting these, two legged or four, must, ethically, be included in the same category of obligation.

Yes, so why is the natural diet of a omnivorous species of great ape considered "immoral"?

Only one of the great apes exhibits moral agency, and this is not based on Nature.
Nature and morality are seperate magisteria. You're comparing apples and carburettors.

 

[Drolefille]

Perhaps not physically or morphologically 'equivalent" (= identical?), but many animals do exhibit the features we use in determining moral obligation so, reasonably, must be included -- Principal of Equal Application.

Wait you can't claim that animals have the same features of humans and then say we're the only animal that has those features in the same post.

What features do you mean specifically...

 

[Valjean]

Wait you can't claim that animals have the same features of humans and then say we're the only animal that has those features in the same post.

What features do you mean specifically...

Sure I can. We share lots of features. They're shaped or developed differently, perhaps, but they're there.

Humans are unique in their appreciation of the consequences/effects of their actions, and in their behavioral flexibility -- we have options. This is what makes us moral agents.
We determine our moral relationships with and obligations toward others by their self-interest -- their sentience (not sapience), ability to experience fear, suffering or joy; their ability to anticipate futurity, &c.
These features are found in many non humans. To be morally consistent, we must apply our determinant principles consistently.

 

[Drolefille]

Sure I can. We share lots of features. They're shaped or developed differently, perhaps, but they're there.

Humans are unique in their appreciation of the consequences/effects of their actions, and in their behavioral flexibility -- we have options. This is what makes us moral agents.
We determine our moral relationships with and obligations toward others by their self-interest -- their sentience (not sapience), ability to experience fear, suffering or joy; their ability to anticipate futurity, &c.
These features are found in many non humans. To be morally consistent, we must apply our determinant principles consistently.

Or we can be equally morally consistent and draw the line at eating members of our own species. Or we can be equally morally consistent and draw the line at eating non-apes or non-apes and non-cetaceans.

There's nothing morally inconsistent about that, it just means we disagree with your conclusions. Or premises.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Or we can be equally morally consistent and draw the line at eating members of our own species. Or we can be equally morally consistent and draw the line at eating non-apes or non-apes and non-cetaceans.

There's nothing morally inconsistent about that, it just means we disagree with your conclusions. Or premises.

Why not draw the line narrower at eating members of our own race?

Because we think we're nice like that.

 

[kaknelson]

I love my meat, although it is is sad that they are butchered in mass numbers and such, besides that I see no reason why not to eat it.