Why I'd argue meat-eating in and of itself isn't immoral

[EverChanging]

Like I said, we have to ask ourselves is destruction a necessary part of existence. This isn't an ideal world and I don't pretend it is.

That argument can be used to justify any type of action, no matter how heinous. Destruction is necessary, and the world is not ideal. Therefore, I kick puppies, destroy the environment, and beat my wife.

Kind of unrelated- I used to be a vegetarian myself and I have been a vegetarian off and on in my life. The reason it's not easy for me to always be is that many of my friends eat meat, and it's also Buddhist ethics not to reject food or gifts, within reason of course. Also, I am very poor, so I'm not likely to pass up a free meal when they offer it.

I also take advantage of free meals and stick with the vegetarian (or vegan -- I try to eat vegan, mostly) options. If there aren't any, I just don't eat. I find it cheaper to buy basic vegan groceries than spending money on expensive meat, cheese, and so forth. Vegetarianism, at least, has been less expensive for me.

 

[Meow Mix]

If animals weren't supposed to be eaten, then why are they made out of delicious meat?

 

[Valjean]

I understand it. But do you understand why such reasoning and slogans will more likely get hundreds to stuff 50 pieces of bacon in their mouth everyday than to reach one person to become vegan/vegetarian?

Certainly. New ideas always seem absurd at first. They're dismissed, then ridiculed, then attacked, but when the facts or reasoning underlying them prove unassailable they're eventually accepted.

 

[Jacksnyte]

If animals weren't supposed to be eaten, then why are they made out of delicious meat?

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[Jacksnyte]

Squirrels?!?!

You monster!!

....

It's a rural southern thing. Most folks from the rural south grew up eating squirrel, dove,etc.

 

[Valjean]

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

People are made out of delicious meat, too.

 

[Jacksnyte]

People are made out of delicious meat, too.

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[Koldo]

If animals weren't supposed to be eaten, then why are they made out of delicious meat?

Can i eat you?
You look delicious.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Can i eat you?
You look delicious.

Is that a preposition in your phrase?:angel2:

 

[gregiam]

I personal believe that man can eat meat if he prays asking God to clean it for the nourishment of the body.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

That argument can be used to justify any type of action, no matter how heinous. Destruction is necessary, and the world is not ideal. Therefore, I kick puppies, destroy the environment, and beat my wife.

No tantric master would take on a student with such an immature worldview

 

[EverChanging]

No tantric master would take on a student with such an immature worldview

And that's exactly the type of worldview that can be defended by your argument for eating meat even when it comes from brutal, inhumane factories that are not only cruel, but environmentally degrading (and I can't imagine that it's so good for the human workers there, either.) Destruction is necessary, it's an unfair world, therefore I...

I don't disagree that destruction and death are a natural, even necessary, part of life. That doesn't mean I should make it any more cruel than it has to be. I'd prefer to do the least harm and most good that I can do. Ahimsa demands nothing less.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

And that's exactly the type of worldview that can be defended by your argument for eating meat even when it comes from brutal, inhumane factories that are not only cruel, but environmentally degrading. Destruction is necessary, it's an unfair world, therefore I...

Well no, not quite the same, because from a tantric scenario eating meat actually serves the purpose of sustaining a living being, while mistreating animals for fun does not, and also, living beings devouring each other is part of how all things flow into each other. All is in Brahman, all flowing into each other.

 

[EverChanging]

Well no, not quite the same, because from a tantric scenario eating meat actually serves the purpose of sustaining a living being, while mistreating animals for fun does not, and also, living beings devouring each other is part of how all things flow into each other. All is in Brahman, all flowing into each other.

Animals are not mistreated for fun in factories. They're mistreated out of greed and neglect and a disregard for the suffering of non-human beings. These animals are considered nothing other than resources. And none of this misery and environmental degradation is required to sustain you. Humans thrive on vegetarian and even vegan diets, if they are balanced. So what this becomes is needless suffering. We don't need the meat from these factories for sustenance, and it's not particularly good for you, not in the amounts Americans typically consume it and with all those chemicals pumped into it.

As for your argument about the flow of life and Brahman, I agree with you that all things are one. All things are connected, a great web. But that doesn't mean I should eat you. As long as I don't need to devour you, shouldn't I just stick to my veggies?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Animals are not mistreated for fun in factories. They're mistreated out of greed and neglect and a disregard for the suffering of non-human beings. These animals are considered nothing other than resources. And none of this misery and environmental degradation is required to sustain you. Humans thrive on vegetarian and even vegan diets, if they are balanced. So what this becomes is needless suffering. We don't need the meat from these factories for sustenance.

As for your argument about the flow of life and Brahman, I agree with you that all things are one. All things are connected, a great web. But that doesn't mean I should eat you.

Well ever-changing I don't mind you being a vegetarian if you like, that's ultimately what it comes down to choice. However, when you try to use Buddhist teachings against me to somehow coerce me into becoming one, it just doesn't work, because Buddhist teachings allow for meat eating.

 

[EverChanging]

Well ever-changing I don't mind you being a vegetarian if you like, that's ultimately what it comes down to choice. However, when you try to use Buddhist teachings against me to somehow coerce me into becoming one, it just doesn't work, because Buddhist teachings allow for meat eating.

I actually don't believe in choice, but that's another discussion. I don't know how exactly you conclude that I am doing anything to coerce you. This is a debate forum, and I'm challenging what I perceive to be poor arguments. That's why we're here. No one's holding a gun to your head and telling you not to eat meat. I am rather disappointed in your rather literal and legalistic approach to Buddhism, however. As I understood it, Buddhism doesn't ever dictate that one must take anything on faith or unthinkingly conform, and that is what you are doing. You're taking rules that made a lot of sense in a given time period and culture and applying them to a very different 21st century set of circumstances and saying, "See? Buddhism permits this!" That really is a very unthinking way to approach religion, and I've never known Buddhism to encourage that.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well Ever-changing I don't see how you think I'm taking a literalistic approach just because I accept the ruling that allows for meat eating. I never criticized anyone else for not eating meat, or said they had to accept it.

 

[Penumbra]

Well ever-changing I don't mind you being a vegetarian if you like, that's ultimately what it comes down to choice. However, when you try to use Buddhist teachings against me to somehow coerce me into becoming one, it just doesn't work, because Buddhist teachings allow for meat eating.

Simply saying that Buddhist teachings allow for meat eating doesn't do anything to address his valid points.

 

[EverChanging]

Well Ever-changing I don't see how you think I'm taking a literalistic approach just because I accept the ruling that allows for meat eating. I never criticized anyone else for not eating meat, or said they had to accept it.

Sounds pretty literal to me. Someone gives a rule, and you follow it because so and so says, regardless of how different our modern circumstances are from the time and place that rule grew up in. That's very literal and legalistic.

 

[nameless]

However, when you try to use Buddhist teachings against me to somehow coerce me into becoming one, it just doesn't work, because Buddhist teachings allow for meat eating.

may be buddhists allows, but buddha wont (if want to be his disciple).