Eating Animals

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder

Post Number:#46  Postby system-hater » February 9th, 2009, 8:29 pm

I don't know whether i should scoff or laugh at this question given its absurdity. The origin of man tracing back to primordial time periods, is encapsulated by the natural urge to consume meat. To say eating meat is "immoral" is to reject and flat out chastise our history and our nature. Abuse of animals would be the only plausible contention for "immorality" as far as simple ethics are concerned, however, it is certainly not "immoral", what is biologically inherent in our survival mechanism. (although i do agree that animals shouldn't be processed by slaughter houses exposing them to chemicals and other harmful bacteria) Only the oversocialized retentive, bubble gum blowers that call themselves "animal rights activists" would take such an ansinine standpoint to a preposterous question as this. Need there be anymore that need's to be said on this matter?
system-hater
 
Posts: 17 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 6th, 2009, 3:48 pm



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#47  Postby anarchyisbliss » February 9th, 2009, 10:07 pm

system-hater wrote:I don't know whether i should scoff or laugh at this question given its absurdity.


Why is it so absurd?



The origin of man tracing back to primordial time periods, is encapsulated by the natural urge to consume meat.


Well, seeing as human beings didn't exist during primordial time periods, this isn't true. I see what you mean though. And I wouldn't say that the natural urge was to eat meat as much as it was to survive.

Only the oversocialized retentive, bubble gum blowers that call themselves "animal rights activists" would take such an ansinine standpoint to a preposterous question as this. Need there be anymore that need's to be said on this matter?


I'm an animal rights activist, and I don't chew bubble gum (it doesn't biodegrade). I'm trying to help the planet and fight cruelty. And yes, much more needs to be said on this matter.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984
anarchyisbliss
 
Posts: 515 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
Location: Maryland

Post Number:#48  Postby wanabe » February 9th, 2009, 10:27 pm

OP-"Murder is immoral, right? So, is it immoral to eat animals? We don't kill them in defense, it's murder. Right?"

Yes killing humans is immoral. Don't know ill get back to you on that...yes technically its murder.

It is immoral to eat animals...no,because we need to eat like everything else does

why don't we just eat plants, that could surly feed us adequately...it may, but there are certain amino acids/protein, that are only in meat.

Even with all the soy and naturally derived synthetic products...yes they still cannot provide what animals do. Also there are chemicals in soy that mimic estrogen, some scientists claim this may have the same effect as having extra estrogen in the body.

For men that may not be good, I happen to be a man. But I don't think any one needs any more hormones then their body makes unless they clearly have a medical condition...now as far as derivative products, even if it is natural, I don't want to put these new products in side me, with no longterm side effects able to be tested for because they are new.

Lastly its expensive to not eat meat...I think so..I hope it gets cheap.

now I am ethically opposed to eating meat, but I still do. when I can turn my yard into a garden, complete with mushrooms and hens to make eggs (natural protein, from “non harmful to animal sources”) I will stop eating meat because it is the right thing to do, if the alternative is supporting an industry that treats living things so poorly.

However hunting with say a old style bow or spear (you know cave man style) has great honor. I think that eating meat would be quite honorable and ceremonial. but thats just me and my way of showing appreciation for natures gift, also every part must be used.

system-hater---“The origin of man tracing back to primordial time periods, is encapsulated by the natural urge to consume meat. To say eating meat is "immoral" is to reject and flat out chastise our history and our nature.” we have made progress in other areas, we don't scoff at those by making improvements, why should eating meat be any different...if we don't need to eat meat, and can live with heath.

I can tolerate free rage animals for food (most humane, irony) but ideally, I think we should stop that as well so that natural animals can reclaim there rightful place, also more areas can be used to preserve nature this way.(why it is an improvement to not eat meat)

I hardly have any moral ground to stand here because i still eat meat but I think I may change this soon because of this post.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
 
Posts: 3382 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Location: UBIQUITY
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.

Post Number:#49  Postby system-hater » February 10th, 2009, 12:05 am

Why is it so absurd?

Anarchyisbliss (I enjoy the chosen username by the way) It is absurd, for the fundamental reason being, that the urge to consume meat is an innate biological trait that has never deviated from our human condition-which i thought i already pointed out. And not to mention that the protien in meat quite literally, influences a natural TASTE for it and promotes extended digestion (as protien takes longer to digest than any other food nutrient) which compels us to eat more of it. Unless you happen to simply supress the urge by converting your diet to a strict vegatarian format, which i do not oppose.


Well, seeing as human beings didn't exist during primordial time periods, this isn't true. I see what you mean though. And I wouldn't say that the natural urge was to eat meat as much as it was to survive.

As for this little retort, primordial means "primitive" by definition. Primitive would subsequently be connected to a period of time when man existed in a state of a troglodyte which means "cave man" or "neandrathal". So we did in fact live in primordial time periods. Furthermore, consumption of meat was essential for survival, but it was also a developed and currently evolved urge as i made clear in the above text. Evidence that supports the consumption of meat as an "urge" is protien synthesis in the muscles triggering a stronger appetite, especially when a person is attempting to grow bigger and larger i.e. bodybuilders.



I'm an animal rights activist, and I don't chew bubble gum (it doesn't biodegrade). I'm trying to help the planet and fight cruelty. And yes, much more needs to be said on this matter.[/quote]

anarchyisbliss, the "bubble gum blowing" statment was merely for comical affect. I stuck that little phrase in there to simply exemplify MOST (perhaps not particularly yours) animal rights activists viturperative tendencies, because let's face it, many of them rant and rave ostentasiously as are the pecadillos of activists anyway.

As for how much more should be said regarding this matter, well, i suppose if you venerate that "immoral" can somehow be correlated to consuming meat, which i believe relates to religious beliefs, than i will stand aside.
system-hater
 
Posts: 17 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 6th, 2009, 3:48 pm

Post Number:#50  Postby Belinda » February 10th, 2009, 7:33 am

Did somebody claim that there is an innate urge in the humans to eat animal flesh? Where is the evidence?


There is no way that humans can continue to eat meat and continue to survive the degradation of the planet's resources. Animal protein costs approximately ten times as much water to produce as vegetable protein. This alone makes animal protein unsustainable as a human food source.

One way forward is for people to be educated to regard meat-eating as an occasional and expensive treat. To start with, meat eating can be kept for twice a week, then diminishing to special occasions.It really is easy. Olive oil and vegetable food have more taste than meat. E.g. try stovie potatoes, which are boiled potatoes mixed with olive oil and chopped onion and some cooked shredded cabbage browned in the oven.

Do you know the traditional Scottish dish called haggis? It can be made with veggy ingredients, indeed one famous Scottish butcher is famous for his veggy haggis.My Scottish granny used to make it too.
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post Number:#51  Postby wanabe » February 10th, 2009, 11:24 am

well in his defence, we do have sharp teeth that are be used for eating meat. (if we give any credit to skeletal structure knowledge I think we should)

so while it might not be part of how we think more or less. we did "grow up" with it there enough to have teeth evolved to apparently eat meat.

however, by the same token, we have more molars for chewing plants, than we have teeth for eating meat...so from an evolutionary stand point, we do eat too much meat I would say.

and yea our lust for meat is part of the global problems.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
 
Posts: 3382 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Location: UBIQUITY
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.

Post Number:#52  Postby Felix » February 10th, 2009, 4:06 pm

Actually, we have the teeth and digestive system of omnivores, not carnivores (if you want to see what a carnivore's teeth look like, look at a cat's teeth) so we are given both the biological and moral option to choose not to kill and eat other animals. Raising livestock is also much more of an energy drain and drain on the environment than growing food crops so even from just a conservation standpoint, meat-eating is detrimental. Plus it will get even worse as poorer nations adapt the animal food rich western diet.
Felix
 
Posts: 1791 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Post Number:#53  Postby Invictus_88 » February 10th, 2009, 5:54 pm

Much of this would be resolved if we distinguised between:

a) Moral issues surrounding the eating of meat.
and
b) Moral issues surrounding modern meat production methods.
Invictus_88
 
Posts: 597 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am

Post Number:#54  Postby theSingerNietzsche » February 10th, 2009, 9:21 pm

Invictus_88 suggests a prudent distinction. I think I'll follow from his splitting. Now, I have only skimmed over this topic so please forgive any minor repetition that may ensue.
Although a. is somewhat of an antecedent to b. [depending on one’s stance on a., b. can be entirely dismissed or engaged] I’ll start with b. as it is far less controversial and more clear cut to argue.

b. intensive farming is immoral.
Intensive farming is wrong because it inflicts serious pain and misery onto millions of sentient animals. Animals, who like us, have complex sensory systems and can feel pain as vividly or perhaps even more vividly than we ourselves do. Why is this actually wrong? If the answer isn’t self evident, I’ll break it down a bit more. Pain is something which is intrinsically bad. It is immediately and strikingly unpleasant [to put it quite timidly]. Something that is intrinsically painful or bad is wrong. I’m sure no-one has any problems admitting that pain is intrinsically bad and so wrong to inflict upon human animals, so how can we justify inflicting it upon non-human animals? Perhaps, it is because humans are rational? But what does this have to do with sensory pain? And if it were a morally pertinent characteristic in this scenario, would it be ok to inflict pain on severely mentally handicapped humans? Who, by all means are not rational, but who still have the capacity to feel immense pain.

Outside of a religious answer [ eg souls] we cannot rationally defend giving human animals moral consideration and not non-human animals, we cannot morally say inflicting pain on animals is permissible; to do so is to act arbitrarily in favour of our species, which is akin to racism.

a. killing animals is wrong.
Now, to suggest that I personally do not kill an animal when I purchase meat in a shop is a ridiculous statement to make and I saw earlier an analogy to a hit-man with concern to the matter. Simple economics dictates that we as consumers demand a product and that the demand determines the supply. I’ll say nothing more on the matter. So to the point, the matter of killing, if it is entirely painless to the animal concerned is a different question. In b. the morally pertinent characteristic was an ability to feel pain, but if death involves no pain then what then is wrong with death? The answer is on the other side of the coin. With the experience of pain, must enter the opposite, which is the experience of pleasure. Now pleasure is something intrinsically good and valuable, it is desirable [and in risk of a making a semantic circle], it is by definition, pleasurable. So a being who can expect to have a future life consisting of pleasures should not have that life taken away from her. Now arguably, a dimension could be added but I don’t see it entirely necessary. That is, of consciousness over time; more specifically a being who has an idea of herself as existing in the past and an idea of herself of existing in the future. Regardless, most animals certainly have the former while the latter is arguable with some.

I’d be careful of the term rights as it strikes quite an astringent and restrictive image. Moral consideration should certainly be given to all sentient beings & I implore anyone to argue with me coherently to the contrary. Likewise, I implore you all to become vegetarians. As for it not being an adequate and feasible diet, that simply isn’t true. Hinduism preaches strict vegetarianism, and a significant population of India are, and have been for a long time vegetarian. Nutritionists are in agreement, vegetarianism is perfectly substantial and healthy as a lifelong diet.

In fleeting,
Yours,
Reno.
theSingerNietzsche
 
Posts: 6 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 10th, 2009, 8:31 pm

Post Number:#55  Postby wanabe » February 11th, 2009, 3:29 am

ok felix, i guess i should have said omnivores in there some where. but i thought that pointing out that we had both kinds of teath was suitable enough, saying we were omivores seemed a little redundant. thank you for adding the digestive tract part, I forgot about that.

in any case, theSingerNietzsche, close enough for me. good post.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
 
Posts: 3382 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Location: UBIQUITY
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.

Post Number:#56  Postby Luthor » February 11th, 2009, 1:31 pm

Any psychology which prohibits self survival (which often include destroying and consuming organic systems), shall be considered a flaw.

Because humanity has made such a complex system, some of these flaws do not affect survival.

Other than that, it's all in your head.
Luthor
 
Posts: 16 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: August 13th, 2008, 5:37 pm

Re: Eating Animals

Post Number:#57  Postby nameless » February 11th, 2009, 3:14 pm

cynicallyinsane wrote:Murder is immoral, right?

Not necessarily, it is illegal.
So, is it immoral to eat animals?

Fallacious non-sequitur. 'Murder' and 'killing and eating' is not equateable. You have assumed, but shown no connection.

We don't kill them in defense, it's murder. Right?

No, not right. 'Murder' is a legal term describing the willful killing of a human being.
You cannot 'murder' an animal, no matter how hyperbolically dramatic and emotional the notion.
We kill to eat, as do so many species.
All the 'emo' argument just works on the personal opinion/feelings level.
Do you not kill a carrot to eat it? Is the carrot not living? What an arbitrary and self-serving distinction to make, between a carrot and a cow.
We 'kill' all the time anyway, bacteria, viruses, step on ants, swat mosquitoes, rude bus drivers...
nameless
 
Posts: 1234 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post Number:#58  Postby theSingerNietzsche » February 11th, 2009, 4:16 pm

OK, I never entered into this with my post nameless but I think either you haven't been succinct enough or you are simply wrong.

Firstly to rephrase clinicallyinsane's comment:
Murder, ceterus parabus, is immoral right?
- almost undeniably it is, so stop being pedantic, you knew what he intimated.

Under your definition of murder, if I killed a human to eat him or her I would not be committing the crime of murder? It seems just as you accuse one of committing an "arbitrary and self serving distinction" you are doing precisely that. It isn't an arbitrary distinction that we make at all. We present sentience as a morally pertinent criterion, while you simply point to being human. What is it about being human that bestows such basic moral consideration?

Besides, solely in a legal domain does murder denote what you’ve claimed; legal inclusions are constantly evolving and changing. I’m sure at a particular point in legal history it wasn’t considered murder to kill a slave for example. Appealing to law does nothing for your claim whatsoever. Murder is “to kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously” [dictionary . com ].

Anyways, I don’t think appealing to the definition of murder suffices to serve either of our causes in this particular argument.
theSingerNietzsche
 
Posts: 6 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 10th, 2009, 8:31 pm

Post Number:#59  Postby nameless » February 12th, 2009, 2:33 am

theSingerNietzsche wrote:OK, I never entered into this with my post nameless but I think either you haven't been succinct enough or you are simply wrong.

Or, perhaps, you haven't read my post with the intent to understand or you simply can't?

Firstly to rephrase clinicallyinsane's comment:
Murder, ceterus parabus, is immoral right?
- almost undeniably it is, so stop being pedantic, you knew what he intimated.

Are you clinicallyinsane? Is he incapable of clarifying misconception's re; his post? Not that i don't appreciate your opinion...

Under your definition of murder,

'Scuse me, hon, go read a dictionary. We aren't talking metaphysics here. It's not 'my' definition.

if I killed a human to eat him or her I would not be committing the crime of murder?

Evidence that you either didn't read my post, or just enough of it to find some objection/threat (to a 'belief'?) and the need to 'defend' something (that 'belief') without any attempt to carefully read or understand what I wrote. I won't grace this crap with a response, re-read my previous post with your eyes open this time.

We present sentience as a morally pertinent criterion,

How self serving.

while you simply point to being human. What is it about being human that bestows such basic moral consideration?

WTF are you talking about? Perhaps you ar responding to someone else's post! I never said any such thing.

Murder is “to kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously” [dictionary . com ].

I'm unimpressed that you managed to find some #14 definition. I can quote 20 dictionary definitions as I said that would outweigh your emotional attempt to find some freak definition. Nice try. Well, no it ain't, it fails. Go read the law, after all, isnt that where 'the law' is defined? Your offering displays desperate 'belief' justification.

Anyways, I don’t think appealing to the definition of murder suffices to serve either of our causes in this particular argument.

My post stands, valid, on it's own.
Your 'beliefs' are your own problem. You've refuted nothing that I said and displayed your own agenda (and poor post literacy). I think that clinicallyinsane can speak for himself and respond to my post if he wishes (though i think that it has all been said).
You do him no service at all with this nonsense.
Thanks for sharing, though...
nameless
 
Posts: 1234 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post Number:#60  Postby wanabe » February 12th, 2009, 4:11 am

nameless do you think is is foolish for us to eat so much meat (from farms) given that meat takes so much more energy, effort, labour. to produce, compared to plants as food?

much of the American mid-west is dedicated to growing feed for animals, when it could be going to us, circumventing a step. its like making more mouths to feed. simply because we like too eat meat so much.

from a moral stand point, I don't know. I empathise with living beings, born as food its worse than slaves. but as far as eating animals that were born free and were hunted in a honourable way (a rifle and even modern bows are not to me nor is traping, but traping may be necessary at times of dire circumstance.) I still would on occasion eat meat when there was bad crops or little vegetation, that's when it makes sense, because it prevents animal death from famine (famine causes more death than hunting responsibly/honourably)
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
 
Posts: 3382 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Location: UBIQUITY
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.

PreviousNext

Return to Ethics and Morality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST