spin

DRFseven:
------------
It is not absolutely wrong to kill people, we have only agreed that it is, so by what rationale would it be wrong to kill anything else?
------------

I think taking the life of any sentient being is wrong. Killing people is wrong. We have attempted to justify the necessity of doing so, though the only time I can see when doing so could be justified is when even more lives are at stake. I can't see this being an argument for eating meat, as it is not necessary.

DRFseven:
------------
In other words, the world only barely agrees that we are better off not killing each other;
------------

I think this really is another topic, but...

DRFseven:
------------
how could you ever hope to convince everyone we'd be better off not killing animals?
------------

In those pockets of life free from those conditions one can contemplate morality a little bit more closely, as we don't have to kill the people around us.

DRFseven:
------------
The only reason that cows, pigs, and chickens are even here is that people like to eat them; in that sense, they're like Christmas trees on Christmas tree farms. Are you saying it's wrong to kill them, but not wrong to make them nonexistent?
------------

It may be better not to be born than to suffer one's life merely to be grown in awful conditions for someone's stomach.

spin

LadyShea:
------------------
I am afraid this thread will also end up going around in circles and cause you further frustration. I do not believe anyone will be able to satisfy your demand for justification.
------------------

I don't know. First, the demand for justification is more a challenge to think than anything else.

I hope you're wrong though.

LadyShea:
------------------
Every person has their own set of values, and may or may not feel strongly enough about any one of them to expend effort justifying it.
------------------

I think that unless one can question one's own values, they are not really their own.

LadyShea:
------------------
Some meat eaters simply don't see any moral issue at all. Animals higher in the food chain eat other animals beneath them and that's just the way it is. Raising animals specifically for food is equal to growing crops in their mind.
------------------

Yes, I understand this. Who's "higher up on the food chain" than the human animal? I'd say it's not a food chain by the time we reach humans. With regard to killing other people, humans take some sort of moral stance, ie it's wrong to murder, but because humans are "on the food chain" they don't have any moral stance about killing animals or paying to kill them.

LadyShea:
------------------
Others (like myself), feel we have an obligation to raise and slaughter our food animals in the most humane and least stressful way possible (and with the least impact on the environment). I demonstrate my stance on this by buying free range chicken, cage free eggs, and my meat comes from small independant farms rather than "factory" farms. I pay more for this, but that is what my personal values dictate I do.
------------------

This is a compromise which I can appreciate. And it is hard not to imagine a diet without meat when it has been ingrained into one's mentality from the time they could understand what they were eating, with the processes of raising animals specifically to be killed and eaten as part of one's daily backdrop.

LadyShea:
------------------
I have also seen the impact of deer overpopulation, and can only imagine what would happen if cattle, sheep and pigs were wild animals.
------------------

Why do you think there is deer overpopulation?

LadyShea:
------------------
Someone else may feel differently...it is all subjective. You will never change your stance, and most people will not change theirs, if they felt the same way you do, they wouldn't eat meat. Was your decision to be a vegetarian based on a debate? Was it based on someone telling you "Hey, eating meat is wrong ya know"?
------------------

It was partly a matter of coming to understand that life is such a fragile thing and so easy to be lost. It was partly because of the "inhumane" treatment of masses of meat crop animals I have seen.

One vivid poster I once saw showed an empty freezer except for a frozen chicken. The caption read: "This is the most space this chicken has ever had."

spin

Jeff:
--------------------
Let's just dispense with the carnivore/cannibal comparison. It's not a very good one.
--------------------

I don't think we can dispense with it. I think it is reasonably apt.


Jeff:
--------------------
Natural selection has no problem with carnivore, but Dahmer-like cannibalism is a different story.
--------------------

Dahmer is not the only person to have been a cannibal. He is simply one that you all have heard of. Cannibalism has been practised in various parts of the world, as I have already stated.

Natural selection is not the question either. We are dealing with the human animal's ability to choose in the things it does. As Dahmer could choose to eat his meat or not, so can you.

Jeff:
--------------------
Man is a social animal, has prospered as such. Cannibalism directly opposes this. How can I trust my buddy to hunt with me if the moment I turn my back, he'll whack me with a rock and eat me?
--------------------

Man has often been a pack animal and if you didn't belong to a particular pack, well, you suffered the consequences.

spin

SK,

I have already mentioned the fact that human ancestors practised opportunistic meat eating as do chimpanzees. The key word for me is "opportunistic". I have pointed out that human teeth are even less adapted to meat eating than some of our close primate relations, and less adapted than some of our forebearers.

spin

PB,

I'm glad you have made it plain that you plaace yourself in the category of moral relativist, which cashes out to me to mean amoral. I think it also nullifies your abuse of contract theory, so, while your "moral relativism" can justify Dahmer, your contract theory, is merely a trapping, probably because you don't think it's good to reservedly put your moral relativism behind his stance.

spin

spin:
------------------------------
You can choose, so it is not an argument.
------------------------------

LadyShea:
------------------------------
Yes, we can choose, and many choose to eat meat. If you are arguing from the stance of "choice" then it comes down to opinion only.
------------------------------

The point about choice is that it nullifies all the "we have no choice in the matter" arguments, such as "we are omnivores (hence have no choice and it's not good for us not to)".

LadyShea:
------------------------------
This will only lead to a circular "my opinion is better than yours" debate just like the last thread unless you wish to list your additional reasons for your choice as has been asked.
------------------------------

I don't think so, as explained in why I mentioned choice. My question was about how one can justify eating other animals, not about opinions per se.

LadyShea:
------------------------------
The consciousness argument is also largly a matter of opinion and the circle begins again. Do you perhaps have some other reasoning or justifications for your choice that we can discuss without simply repeating the previous thread?
------------------------------

The thread is about finding a moral justification for eating meat, not arguing, 1) because we can (and we like it) or 2) because we can't help it, neither of which are arguments based on morals.

Toto

I avoided the previous thread, because life is too short, etc. I tried to be a vegetarian for many years, but I finally had to admit that I could not stay healthy on a non-meat diet. Some people have the body make up to survive as a vegetarian, but most of us do not. I had to accept myself as someone who could not live on tofu alone. (And it's not the taste - I really got to like tofu and brown rice, and I could eat Chinese vegetarian food all day.)

The Dalai Lama, whose moral code calls for compassion for all living things, eats steak every other day to preserve his health. I'm sure the cows he eats get good karma from the experience. </irony>

The <a href="http://www.beyondveg.org" target="_blank">Beyond Vegetarianism</a> web site has the largest compendium of practical and moral quandaries in following alternate diets. If you really want an essay of the morality of eating meat, try <a href="http://www.beyondveg.org/nicholson-w/moral-omniv/morality-omniv-1a.shtml" target="_blank">The Morality of Human Omnivorousness</a> A satire with a serious message.

And just remember: <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/hi/ArrogantWorms/CarrotMurder.html" target="_blank">Carrot Juice is Murder!</a>

Bree

Long story:

I have endometriosis, which is a disorder that affects the reproductive system in women only. Since there is no known cure and no 100% effective treatment for the disease, I have turned to a more holistic path to supplement the chemical treatments which I was and still am undergoing.

I was vegan before my diagnosis, following a very strict diet but including everything my body needed as far as nutrients et cetera. Our ballet company had it's own dietician and while we ate quite sparingly, the essential nutrients were included. After my diagnosis, my dietician noted with interest that some women experience relief of pain when lysine is introduced into the body in the form of chicken. After an extensive physical, it was determined that I might benefit if I included chicken, milk, and eggs into my diet (I was 17 at this point).

While my endometriosis didn't disappear, I did experience remarkable relief - not complete relief, but it was indeed a change. I attributed this to the change in diet, since nothing previously had taken even the slightest edge off the discomfort I was feeling daily.

One of the major reasons why I am no longer vegan is because of the lack of calcium I received during critical stages of bone development in my youth. I did not drink milk for about 5 years, and my bones have suffered for it. Ironically, the medication I will need to take for my endometriosis in my later years robs the body of much of its bone strength - so I make doubly sure I take advantage of the few calcium-building years I have left by drinking milk as often as possible.

I must note that while I do take some supplements in the form of pills (such as acidophilus, since I am allergic to yeast and also to yoghurt, the only natural form of acidophilus out there), I don't generally like to do this. Pumping too many minerals in the body must surely be as bad as not getting enough - I'd rather do it naturally.

This I also do - being from a relatively small city in the heart of Wisconsin, surrounded by dairy and chicken farms (Amish, mostly), it's easy to purchase produce and poultry from the "simple folk" at farmer's markets and other natural outlets for comparable prices. I have no desire to hurt other living beings unnecessarily. I see eating these meat products as a necessity, however - so I make doubly sure to take precautions to ensure that what I DO take into my body is healthy for me AND the animal which gave it's life to feed me.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Bree ]</p>

Baloo

From Meriam-Webster:
So, essentially, you hold as a moral absolute that it is wrong to unnecessarily cause the suffering or death of any sentient being; that is, any object which exists, and responds to or is concious of sensory impressions. If this is not accurate (i.e. a strawman in any way), I assure you it is not intentional, and (along with others, I'm sure) implore you to be more precise.

A third time, spin, I ask you: From your moral standpoint, is it immoral to unnecissarily harm or destroy a robot which exists, perceives physical harm, and reacts to that physical harm in a recognizable manner? Again, please note that I stand by the statement: There is no intrinsic difference between pulling the legs off of an ant, and pulling legs off of the hypothetical robot described in the earlier thread. You, however, claim there is a distinction between these two things, but give NO basis for that distinction. Please comment.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet

Yes, you think it reasonably apt, but you're wrong. The difference between eating meat in human society and being a cannibal in human society is tremendous. If you can't differentiate between the two, perhaps you shouldn't be dictating morals and philosophy to others.

Agreed, which is why used the term, "Dahmer-like cannibalism", not because I felt he was in any way unique.


Agreed, but never indiscriminately. The two most common occurences are in indviduals with deviant pyschologies and, in highly-restricted form, some religions. If you disagree, name any major city where you can walk into a restaurant and order human meat off the menu.


You're so used to repeating the same worn arguments that you've failed to notice that that's not the point I'm making. I was explaining why being carnivorous and being cannabalistic in the human race has different social ramifications. You're bring up the tired old "You can choose not to eat meat, but the panther can't" argument.


Yes, and historically, under rare occasions cannibalism was performed on the losers of a battle, although this was very rare. The key word is "Indiscriminately". To my knowledge, there is not now, nor has there ever been a culture that practiced cannibalism indiscriminately and has survived to present day.

Hence, the difference between that and eating meat. Almost all cultures today are meat-eaters, and can do so without social stigma.

Jeff