Narz
keeping it real
Well, as a lover of morality don't you think we should do our best to create and enforce animal welfare laws? "All that it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing" and all that.
Is It Moral to Eat Meat?
- Thread starter LightFang
- Start date
We, as other animals, have developed in evolution the natural urge to keep our species alive.
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
Other than biology hiding behind our universal morality more on some cultures and a bit less on others our morality is antropocentric centered on human and human life which we believe it to be not only so superior of animal life but something worth protecting for.
Biologically Human meat is something we perceive as disgusting also.
Narz
keeping it real
Have their been any double blind studies confirming this revulsion to human flesh (say human sandwiches vs. kangaroo sandwiches (couldn't be pork or chicken see, if would have to be two completely unfamiliar tastes).
Also, while meat may have nutritional value is is not essential and many choose to live without it and lead normal healthy lives (including athletes and body builders, for example Carl Lewis [world Olympic record holder] was a vegan when he broke his records).
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
I think they had been but i can't find or explain my source of that information. That our mind finds human flesh disgusting is however something very easy to imagine and agree. I am not specifying killing people as being disgusting i am addressing cannibalism.
Being a vegan means losing the nutritious elements that exists in meat and do not exist in plants. Such elements are important , essential and so on for any regular human being and there is no reason , not to get them from our food.
So i could care less if Carl Lewis or Body builders were vegans. Regarding Body builders i wonder how in hell do they get the necessary protein that is necessary for muscle production. By Pills ? I don't see that great difference then with the consumption of the meat and those Pills. Especially for average Joe.
Another advantage of meat is the industries of meat and their relationship with the economy. I don't see the benefits of Eradicating all meat from our consumption .
Quiet Sound
- This title left blank -
For myself, it's not killing non-self aware species that is an issue, it's the suffering they may be subjected to by the method of death or their living conditions up to that point.
Because meat tastes really freaking good.
Humans are generally carnivores. Besides that a vegetarian diet is not even that healthy, especially for one that is athetically active. Oh and meat tastes good.
It's called a 'food chain'. Humans are currently at the top.
Uncle Anton
Lighthorseman
I'm sure this has been raised beforehand in the previous threads that I haven't been bothered to look up... but...erm...Loaded question? 
I mean, attempts at drawing analogies between meat eaters and Mao Zedong aside, who's morality are we talking about here?
Who gets to define morality? Is it a case of majority rules? Is it a case of the most powerful rules? More basic than that, considering that World Government is a concept not yet accepted by the majority of humanity, who is anyone on this forum to comment on the morality of anyone else based upon their diet, considering they can be from a different society that has different culture, different laws, and different societal norms (and thus ideas on what is right and what is wrong)?
I could be from a country which says baby lambs are venerated as Deities and can't be manhandled, let alone eaten. The fact that I'm actually from a country where Sam Kekovich comes around and gives you a darned stern talking to if you're not eating a roast lamb whole for breakfast each day certainly doesn't make me any less moral simply because I'm born in a society which may or may not have different rules to someone else's.
And to suggest that one culture is superior to another's without a full knowledge and immersion of both is in many cases foolish and in almost all cases exceptionally arrogant.
I mean, attempts at drawing analogies between meat eaters and Mao Zedong aside, who's morality are we talking about here?
Who gets to define morality? Is it a case of majority rules? Is it a case of the most powerful rules? More basic than that, considering that World Government is a concept not yet accepted by the majority of humanity, who is anyone on this forum to comment on the morality of anyone else based upon their diet, considering they can be from a different society that has different culture, different laws, and different societal norms (and thus ideas on what is right and what is wrong)?
I could be from a country which says baby lambs are venerated as Deities and can't be manhandled, let alone eaten. The fact that I'm actually from a country where Sam Kekovich comes around and gives you a darned stern talking to if you're not eating a roast lamb whole for breakfast each day certainly doesn't make me any less moral simply because I'm born in a society which may or may not have different rules to someone else's.
And to suggest that one culture is superior to another's without a full knowledge and immersion of both is in many cases foolish and in almost all cases exceptionally arrogant.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Uncle Anton, the OP believes in absolute morality (I think).
Most of us don't, and as a result, the question makes a lot less sense to us..
Most of us don't, and as a result, the question makes a lot less sense to us..
LesCanadiens
Deity
That doesn't excuse my mention of stealing though.
But you can't steal from something that isn't aware of the concept of ownership, as such a creature can't even own anything in the first place.
QuoVadisNation
keeping your angel alive
I still don't understand what morality has to do with eating meat. We eat meat because we humans are bigger and stronger. Morality has nothing to do with it, humans come first.
holy king
Deity
/finally end thread.
No end thread. Is it moral for might to make right?
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This thread is sooo going to break down into typical ill-reasoned moral anti-realism.That doesn't make any sense at all. Well, actually, it does make sense, but it is a completely bizarre point to make.
Observe:
Socrates: Is it moral to murder and rape children?
QuoVadisNation: MORALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO IT! RAPISTS ARE BIGGER AND STRONGER THAN KIDS!
Socrates:
The point being, the mere fact that something is bigger than stronger than another thing has absolutely nothing to do with whether an action committed by the stronger thing is moral. That is, unless you subscribe to one of those asinine versions of moral anti-realism that are so popular among people who aren't very good at thinkin' and are thus moved by the microscope/telescope/kaleidoscope argument against moral realism.
QuoVadisNation
keeping your angel alive
For someone so loving for logic and philosophy, you sure would make a terrible lawyer. Rapists raping human children isn't analogous to humans eating inferior species (not inferior beings)
holy king
Deity
That doesn't make any sense at all. Well, actually, it does make sense, but it is a completely bizarre point to make.
Observe:
Socrates: Is it moral to murder and rape children?
QuoVadisNation: MORALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO IT! RAPISTS ARE BIGGER AND STRONGER THAN KIDS!
Socrates:
The point being, the mere fact that something is bigger than stronger than another thing has absolutely nothing to do with whether an action committed by the stronger thing is moral. That is, unless you subscribe to one of those asinine versions of moral anti-realism that are so popular among people who aren't very good at thinkin' and are thus moved by the microscope/telescope/kaleidoscope argument against moral realism.
morality is something that regulates human behaviour within the pack to make it fitter. (destroying ecosystems by totally extincting animals is ultimately bad for humanity, thus immoral. eating individual animals is not immoral, since it makes humanity fitter.)
it does not apply to individual animals. asking wether it is immoral for a human to eat meat is indeed as asking wether a lion eating meat is immoral.
asking that question is totally senseless, since something that doesnt effect humans negatively has nothing to do with morality.
and i agree, that child-rapist "argument" was far below your niveau...
Communisto
Condottiere
Eating meat has as much to do with morality as drinking water does.
aaglo
Furioso!
The weird part is that you really can't be 100.0000% sure that plants cannot enjoy life. In fact, since plants reproduce themselves shows somekind of primal "will" to live, and thus killing plants is just as immoral as killing animals. Better start eating already dead plant parts (and keep your hands away from the fruits - it's like eating embryo's !!! ).
