Is It Moral to Eat Meat?

Just saw a quote today, oddly enough in a food court, from Bertotti Brecht; "Food first, then morality." I immediately thought of this thread. Anyone want to declare a jihad over this statement on whatever country Brech is from?

Not really, I mean, I laughed when I read that PETA stood for People Eating Tasty Animals.
 
i live simply so others may simply live - Gandhi
i wont eat pork or beef on the grounds that it takes so much veggies, usually corn about 12lb to get 1lb beef 8lb to get 1lb pork, by that their is more food to share and fewer people starve. i will eat chicken 3-1 ratio and fish usually eats what we don't so their is much more around, 'sides less cows=less methane=less global weirding (term i use because the climate gets more bizarre as methane and CO2 go up, not necessarily warmer)
 
Meat is delicious and makes our lives tastier, therefore it is moral.


So it can't understand what the pain is coming from.

It can in a limited way, but it can't understand it in the way that we can.
 
morality is man made. as is justice. so as soon as animals can establish a bestial code of morality and and interspecies court of justice i will consume them until i die.

then they can eat me and sue themselves.
 
To me it's obviously good to be a generalist when it comes to food in terms of evolution. If you specialize too much and your food supply good away, you go extinct. Our ancestors decided a long time ago to be omnivorous. It's hard to argue that they made an immoral choice because we're still here today, in part, because of it.
 
justice is structured revenge, a means of exacting revenge through a third party. you don't need morality for revenge. just emotion. however the third party usually uses morality as a means of power (to 'justify') that end.

i'm still gonna eat meat. to each his own.
 
justice is structured revenge, a means of exacting revenge through a third party. you don't need morality for revenge. just emotion. however the third party usually uses morality as a means of power (to 'justify') that end.

i'd say that the concept of "revenge" pretty much requires some concept of "morality".
 
i'd say that the concept of "revenge" pretty much requires some concept of "morality".

not really. if one caveman steals another caveman's food he'll get pissed off and hit him over the head with a rock. no morality there.

if you're going to define it as 'an eye for an eye' and remove emotion from it, i.e. third person intervention, that's justice through morality held by the society and enacted through the third party representing that society.
 
not really. if one caveman steals another caveman's food he'll get pissed off and hit him over the head with a rock. no morality there.

well, if the caveman wouldnt view "being robbed of his food" as bad (which definitely is a moral term. in this case it stems from the idea that "starving is bad") he wouldnt react at all.
 
a caveman will kill the other even after he gets his food back, but an animal is more likely to kill its opponent during the actual fight.
 
Etymologically,

Moral < Moralis (L) = pertaining to Mores (L) = customs, including both personal habits and societal norms

Ethics < Ethica (Gk) = also means customs, including both personal habits and societal norms, but is usually meant as a short form of Ethica Arete = GOOD habits


Justice < Iustitia (L) < Ius (L) - Universal, Natural Law.

Well, ok, Ius was also often used to mean "common law" derived from Jurisprudence (as opposed to Lex, codified law passed by the decree of a king or legislature), which is based on tradition and societal norms and thus morality. However, I prefer its usage, as a synonym with Fas (L) = absolute, Divine Law; the Will of God.
 
Back
Top Bottom