shamon

What about the immoral part? This is what I’m asking about? Is it immoral?

shamon

You say you disagree, with what? Why is it over-simplified; it’s a simple issue.

shamon

Need: A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.

Animal: An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.

Are these terms really that difficult to understand? I meant mammals, of course.

If we don't require mammals (animals), then isn't it immoral to eat them?

shamon

If you kill and you don’t have to, then you kill needlessly. You may have a purpose in killing an animal, namely killing the animal, but it’s not out of necessity. Therefore, it’s murder.


I won't obfuscate my point here. It IS simple.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]</p>

shamon

Who requires it?

I didn’t mention those that required meat b/c of poverty or non-access to other sources of food, just those that have other options. Villagers without other options are not immorally murdering. Members of civilization that needlessly kill mammals (meat) for food are committing murder.

EVERYONE reading these posts. Unless members of the aforementioned meet-needing village are reading these posts.

Wearing yellow is not immoral unless it needlessly harms an animal. If the only way you could wear a yellow garment was to kill canaries, then it would be immoral.

Is it not immoral to kill things, if you don’t need them? If you disagree with this then I guess we don’t have much to talk about.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]</p>

shamon

All essential amino acids can easily be obtained from non-animal foods. It’s not a luxurious option of obtaining a balanced diet. Are you saying vegetarian diets aren’t feasible b/c you have to eat more units of food to get the same amount of protein? One steak vs. 3 servings of vegetables; is this so difficult – it’s not like you have to eat enormous portions. It’s not unreasonable in any way.

Meat IS NOT needed in any human diet. Some people may not have access to non-meat sources of nutrients. These people are not immoral. It is immoral to eat meat ONLY when you don’t have to. Humans nutritional needs are best served by a vegetarian diet. What humans NEED meat? Require meat? WHAT HUMANS REQUIRE MEAT?

I never said it was legally murder, just morally. I never suggested forcing people to do anything, especially with the law.

shamon

What is wrong with my statement? Telling me it’s wrong but not telling me why is odd.

brighid

Now, I do disagree with the statement "If humans don’t NEED meat in their diet, then it is ALWAYS immoral to NEEDLESSLY kill an animal for food." It simply doesn't follow - you may have simplified too far.

You can only make this ascertation when humans have access to proper nutrition through a strictly vegetarian diet ALL year round. This is NOT the case for most of the world, specifically countries that are not able to grow adequate and variant crops to sustain the proper nutritional needs of its populous, or that has a year round environment to support a wide range of crops. IF one is able to obtain a complete and balanced diet, including the proper amount of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes (and know enough to combine them properly to get adequate protein and amino acid intake) and dairy products without having to purchase supplements to achieve PROPER nutrition – THEN that population CAN choose to partake of a vegetarian diet.

Often times because of lack of availability of adequate and varied crop access, or simply because the local environment cannot support such needs man MUST eat meat in order to survive. LIKE IT OR NOT! And that happens to be the case for a vast majority of humans, even in the US where we have more then enough food to go around but poor resource allocation methods.

So, IF one can prevent harm to other non-human animals one should do the best to see that non-human animals are treated and when necessary harvested humanely. Many non-human animals are killed (including cute, little fury ones) when harvesting fruit and vegetable crops! Therefore, by eating any mass-produced and harvested nutrient one is contributing to the death of non-human animals! Personally, I am more concerned about the human animal that is abused in order to harvest your precious fruits and vegetables, such as those nomadic immigrant workers getting paid a couple dollars a day to work in the fields, who are forced to live in shacks, go without food or shelter during the day and who are threatened or killed for attempting to organize or speak out! If anything, we should be boycotting fruit and vegetable manufacturers and distributors for their inhumane treatment of the immigrant working under deplorable conditions!

The adoption of universal vegetarian diet guidelines is not possible and in most cases to adopt such a diet would be inhumane because people would die from malnutrition, as so many currently do. And as the highest-ranking member of the food chain, humans take precedence over non-human animals.

Therefore, I find no moral repugnance in using available resources for the survival of our species, including eating the flesh of non-human animals when other options are not adequate to sustain proper nutrition. Hence, it is not ALWAYS immoral to kill a non-human animal for food.

Brighid

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Bill Snedden

Hmmm... Your own definition of "need" as posted above:

I require food in order to survive. I want that food to be meat. Both conditions fit your definition of need. Therefore, I need meat and its consumption is not immoral, by your own terms. Q.E.D.

Let's assume, however, that you really didn't mean to make your definition so self-defeating. Most people wouldn't include "want" in their definition of "need"; you probably did so in error.

So, if I were on an island and the only comestibles available were other animals, would I be justified (under the condition of need) in killing and eating them?

Following that line of reasoning, what if the only animals available were other humans? Still justified?

In order to be consistent, you should answer "yes". The moral principle you've identified is "need", not any inherent value in human or animal life.

Using that in a reductio ad absurdam yields the uncomfortable conclusion that one is justified in doing anything to meet one's "needs". Killing & stealing aren't wrong on their own, they're only wrong if you don't need to kill and steal.

I'm curious also as to how and why you draw the differentiating lines as you do. Another quote:

Why the differentiation between mammals and non-mammals? Is it okay to kill and eat non-mammals? If so, why?

In fact, it's not simple. You only believe it to be so because you see the principles underlying your moral system as self-evident. Unfortunately, others do not. If you want to demonstrate that they are, you must argue for them. Simply saying that "killing animals without need is murder" isn't enough as most of the posters here don't accept that statement on its face.

"Breaking rocks without need is murder!" Most people wouldn't accept that statement either. That's because they would agree that the qualitative difference between humans and rocks is self-evident. Unfortunately for your argument, most of us also believe that the qualitative difference between human and non-human animals is also self-evident. In order to demonstrate the truth of your thesis, you will have to successfully show that the qualitative difference most people seem to see is in fact not there.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

shamon

I’m not talking about those that DON’T have access to non-meat food sources.

It’s not that difficult. Just eat what you normally eat but remove the meat. No complex dietary rules or with silly food combinations required. Eat a varied diet without meat and you’ll be fine. We really couldn’t have survived for millions of years if our diet was the difficult to surmise.

Men must NEVER eat meat in order to maintain proper nutrition unless starving (without another choice). No one in the U.S. has to eat meat.

This is insulting! I don’t advocate vegetarianism b/c of the cute-ness of any animals. Killing animals while harvesting crops IS wrong. This has nothing to do with my statement about needlessly killing animals though. You may buy a car and accidently run over your dog with it but that doesn’t make you immoral. Or course, if you were buying the car specifically to run over your dog…

I’m concerned about this also, as we all should be if we’re aware of this situation. I support reform in this area but let’s start with something simple that’s a little less systemic. Exploiting immigrant workers is horrible, but doesn’t have anything to do with the rightness of wrongness of killing animals when they’re not required in our diet.

Our precedence in the food chain doesn’t alter that it’s immoral to kill when we don’t have to; it makes it even more important that we consider these things as members of the top. I never mentioned any “universal guidelines”. If people would die from malnutrition then obviously it wouldn’t be wrong for them to eat meat. Of course, I’m not talking about people that don’t have access to other means of sustenance.

It’s ALWAYS immoral if it’s not NEEDED. Do you agree? I never said it was immoral if other options weren’t available.