David Gould

By using your computer, you have decided that humans have more value than animals.

This is because the resources used to make it and the pollution thus caused and the roads to trasnport it to you are all at the expense of animals.

Even when you eat a plant, you have beaten all animals who may have needed that plant to live to the punch - congratulations! Welcome to survival of the fittest.

You draw the line at a different point than me, that is all.

brighid

“I didn't equate killing animals for food to getting mugged by a homeless guy. What I said was that a homeless guy killing someone who is not as fit as him is no different from an animal killing someone not as fit as them. It was a "Survival of the Fittest" argument.”

That is how I interpreted it. Also animals rarely kill except for the sake of food or protection, therefore one cannot equate the acts of an amoral animal with those of a man attacking a weaker man for money – not for the food that his flesh would bring or for his own self-defense. And since cannibalism is illegal and detrimental to the health and fitness of the species it is wrong to do. Survival of the Fittest is complex and in the world of non-human animals, the weakest are killed because the weak dilute the species, or harm the pack. That is why predators prey on the sick and the young. The fastest and strongest young animals will elude the predator and hopefully survive long enough to pass on their genes. There is nothing moral or immoral about the survival of the fittest within the non-human animal species. It is a necessary component of evolution and serves a very important purpose.

The man who kills another because he desires something another possess, which he can get by other non-violent means, and is not defending his life, liberty or property is immoral to kill another human being because we ARE moral agents and we are responsible to one another. And in a society with laws we have an obligation to follow them (in most cases).

Also as far as the argument for minorities go, we taught our children incorrectly. There is no difference between the abilities of a white person and a black person. It can even be argued, that as far as physical prowess goes, the black man has superior talents to the white man. We are of the same species and it has been detrimental to the growth of our species to enslave the black man. The incorrect teaching was done out of fear and a desire for power and control. We cannot compare the actions of any animal with that of human animals. We are on completely different planes of existence and although there are animals that come close to our intellectual abilities, we must place animals on a sliding scale. We are the top of the food chain. We are the top of the food chain because our brains evolved disproportionate to our bodies and evolved to have a much higher thinking capacity, specifically because we ate a much larger portion of meat.

We play the game of survival of the fittest every day, without knowing it. The strongest humans reap the greatest rewards, whether that be physically strong or mentally strong. And those of us who are interested in optimal health do so in order to increase our physical and mental strength and will hopefully have the ability to pass our genes along. Animals cannot rationalize or even over come their circumstances, human animals can. That is one of the many things that sets us apart from the rest of the animals. The strong survive and the weak die or are at a severe disadvantage in this world. I don't feel this obligates us NOT to take care of and help bring those humans to the highest state of living the can achieve, but the fact remains they are weaker, more vulnerable and have a great chance of premature death, and a lesser chance of passing on their genetic makeup.

We should not be cruel to humans or animals. This does not mean we should not kill, nor does it mean we should not humanely and conservatively harvest animals for food. Animals are a viable and good nutrient source, despite much of the incomplete data to the contrary. Animal protein has not been found to be detrimental to the growth of the human body. TOO much animal protein, combined with higher quantities of processed foods, exposure to pollution and a sedentary lifestyle contribute to disease in death. A completely vegetarian diet that does not include animal nutrient sources is as detrimental to ones health as TOO much animal protein. And a strictly vegetarian diet has not been proven to better for human health. And fish is NOT a vegetable As far as diet is concerned, it must be individually evaluated because what is good for you, may not be good for me or your neighbor or your child. One of the most significant problems I see with the American diet is the lack of knowledge about nutrition. I also feel that the government does a major disservice to the population by only making recommendation for minimum requirements to avoid being deficient, instead of also making recommendation for normal and healthy functioning.

The debate about if we should kill animals is mute to me. Yes, we should kill them. We should raise them under humane conditions, we should make sure they are healthy and we should harvest them with great care. Animals were meant to be food sources for other animals, and although we are highly evolved in comparison to the vast majority of animals, we are still animals. We should not destroy their habitats so we can make money, we should not kill animals to the point of extinction, I don’t feel we should kill animals for sport and we should only kill those animals that are optimal sources of nutrition, through domestication, humane living and harvesting.

It is wrong to attempt to compare the actions of non-human animals and human animals. There can be no equitable comparison and we should not attempt to confuse reality with such improper equivocations.

Brighid

free12thinker

No matter how long the response is, it still spells out "we are more superior and therefore are entitled to do with them as we wish". We separate man from other species for no other reason besides "we can", and the only reason we can is because "we have", and the only reason we have, is because "we can". But unlike other species (carnivorous) who need to feast on other animals to survive, we don't. We will not agree on this, but millions of vegetarians prove otherwise.

At least you get the hunting/experimentation thing, so that's half the battle.

I will add one thing: I don't blame people or get mad at people who eat meat. How can I. We are programmed that way from the beginning. Some of us break away, most of us don't.

brighid

free12thinker,

Yes, we are superior and because of our evolutionary superiority we have the ability to do things ALL other species of animals cannot – make choice and intellectualize. This does not make the factual deliniation and valuation of all other species immoral. In order to make moral choice we must put things in degrees and without it we cannot make accurate moral choices. The vegetarian places things in degrees, and even amongst the broad categories of vegetarians, there are many degrees: lacto-ovo, vegan, those who eat meat occasionally, those who think fish aren’t meat, etc. Each person simply sets the standard at a different level. We have different standards for the differentiation of animals. We agree that human life is most valuable and from there we disagree. The value of the life of a fish is not equal to the value of the life of a human, plain and simple. This does not mean that humans devalue fish, but that we rightfully put a greater value upon our own lives.

The fact that some people live healthy lives as vegetarians does not mean all people do, or should not eat meat. It simply means that some people live healthy lives through this dietary choice. But there are an equal, if not greater number of people who live healthy and long lives eating meat. Because some people do lead what appears to be healthy lives without meat does not make it immoral for anyone to eat meat. There are many obese vegetarians who will die of the same types of diseases that obese meat eaters die from. And if it is the goal of vegetarians that everyone live healthily then vegetarians must allow each person to make that individual choice, even if you disagree. Or perhaps vegetarians would desire that their choices be taken away from them and be forced to eat meat, or do something that goes against their moral reasoning? I doubt that. So, by being a vegetarian and not supporting the meat industry you are making the difference in the life of animals. And because I buy my meat for a local market that only purchase meat from environmentally responsible growers, uses no hormones, antibiotics, or chemicals with their animals, allows the animals to roam free and humanely harvests them I too, am contributing to the overall health and fitness of the environment, of animal populations and the human populations.

You are right, we will not likely agree that eating meat is morally wrong. There has yet to be a vegetarian in this forum, or any other forum that has been able to present a sound moral argument against the complete elimination of animal nutrient sources from totality of the human diet. A sound argument has been made and agreed upon that we should make humane choices because it is both good for the animal populations, the environment and therefore advantageous and desirable for humans. But no one has presented a valid argument that supports universal vegetarianism. Therefore, it can only be argued that in some cases, for some people a vegetarian diet is preferable AND that we should do our best to deal humanely with all living creatures and conserve all of our resources, animal, plant and mineral.

You are uncomfortable with the idea of killing any animal for consumption. Discomfort is a good gauge in devising an evaluation system for right and wrong. I am uncomfortable with killing animals for any other reason then food consumption, when they pose a serious threat to humans, or in the course medical research. And in ALL of these cases I believe that the most humane solution is the only one that should be used.

Yes, as humans we can evaluate animals differently. There is nothing wrong with this and in fact it IS what separates us from the rest of the animals and makes us uniquely human. We SHOULD use this advantage, therefore we can and we do. The fact that we are able to do such things and exercise such choices has no baring on morality.

And I would also agree with you that we are “programmed” to eat meat from the beginning. We are omnivores, not herbivores and our bodies are best designed to gain certain nutrients from animal sources (which cannot be found in plant sources, or are not synthesized by the body well or at all from plant sources) AND from a variety of plant sources. We are human because we eat a larger amount of meat and we have evolved to be superior because of the adaptations this diet has given us. Society didn’t program us to be this way, evolution has. Certain segments of society reinforce the need for meat, and some over-emphasize that need but it is not societies fault that we are meat eaters, it is the perfect design of Mother Nature that has. And as a human, with higher brain function you can choose to break away from that design and with the advances of science (which is a direct result of that higher brain function) you are able to maintain a fairly healthy diet. In fact, you should be grateful that we are meat eaters, without which we would likely still be swinging from branches and you wouldn’t be who or what you are today without the vitally important role meat has played in human evolution.

Brighid

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

free12thinker

[quote]Originally posted by brighid:
<strong>free12thinker,
We agree that human life is most valuable and from there we disagree. The value of the life of a fish is not equal to the value of the life of a human, plain and simple. This does not mean that humans devalue fish, but that we rightfully put a greater value upon our own lives.

I don't agree that human life is most valuable, so we really don't even agree there.

tronvillain

free12thinker:
I see people claim this occasionally, but I have my doubts about whether they actually hold that position. Are you indifferent between the death of a human and the death of a dog? If you wouldn't be willing to decide between of them by, say, flipping a coin, it seems unlikely that you do.

brighid

“We can't present a valid argument because we can't teach an old dog new tricks. When we are nurtured to eat meat from the beginning, someone telling us the immoralities behind it sounds wrong. Society accepts it, much like they do religion, and so it's right.”

That is complete BS. We certainly CAN and do teach old dogs new tricks – it’s called progress. The immoralities, don’t sound wrong, they simply aren’t immoral in every case. IF it were immoral, someone should be able to come up with a sound argument for the moral imperative of everyone switching to a meatless diet. It cannot be made because although we are all human, each of our bodies are unique and have similarities, but sometimes vastly different requirements.

Evolution has dictated that we eat meat, not society. Society simply reinforces our nature, and in some cases goes a bit overboard. I would say some segments accept whatever they are told, but not everyone. Certainly not the people in this forum and many, many people I know of. The scientific community certainly doesn’t! But thus far there has been no compelling moral or health argument to support the UNIVERSAL adoption of a vegetarian diet. There is good data that one should eat a primarily vegetarian diet, but not an exclusively vegetarian diet.
We cannot eliminate death and suffering, period. We can seek to eliminate the greatest amount of suffering and promote the best quality of life for all beings. But everything dies. Everything dies so life can be brought to future life. Some life, like the life of the vegetables you hold so dear forfeits it’s life so you may be nourished. A vegetarian diet is not any more moral than a meat eating diet. Plenty of furry little animals and other life forms including insects are killed to harvest those vegetables and fruits. Immigrant workers are exploited and murdered so you can eat cheap fruits and vegetables. So, please don’t attempt to be sanctimonious in your vegetarian, "right to life for all beings" choice. It is the right choice for you, but it does not eliminate human suffering or the suffering of other life forms. You simply don’t value the life forms that forfeit themselves so you may eat fruits and vegetables. How is that ANY different from the meat eater? It is not.

I value life just as much as you do and eating meat doesn’t change that and as a meat eater I thoroughly sick and tired of the position that I do not, when in fact I take greater measures then quite possibly you do to humanely care for and preserve all life as best can be done.

We are OMNIVORES, plain and simple. And it will take thousands, perhaps millions of years of evolutionary change to make us into herbivores. In order to maintain our higher brain function we need more energy, animal protein provides more concentrated energy and I perfectly suited to meet our metabolic needs.

Also- unless you can honestly state that you are willing to forfeit your life to save the life of a bird, fish, monkey or other animal, you don’t ACTUALLY place yourself equal to them, you only believe or pretend you do. Nor does the fact that I, and most humans, value their lives and human life above animal life make it wrong or even immoral.

You don’t eat meat so you can avoid the feelings of discomfort you feel at the thought of the death of certain animals (but not all.) It is your subjective preference and it is what is best for you. Why is it that your line of valuation is better then that of a meat eaters? Will you stop eating vegetables because billions of insects suffer horrible deaths to harvest your food, or that millions of ground dwelling animals, or even larger mammals are killed each year for your food? Or what about all those lab animals that scientist perform tests on to provide you with the supplements a vegetarian diet needs in order to get the necessary nutrients and prevent deficiency diseases? Or what about the conditions the cows and chickens live under that give you your eggs, milk, yogurt and cheese? What about their premature deaths? Or what about the primates and other animals killed to harvest your fruits and other vegetarian fare in foreign lands? Or the indigent immigrant workers in California who work for a dollar or two a day to pick cabbages, carrots, etc?

The vegetarian position is hypocritical and subjective. It states that as a vegetarian I am allowed to set the valuation standard at whatever point I wish, but does not allow others to have the equal right in creating subjective standards of valuation. Furthermore, in the harvesting of fruits and vegetables many equally valuable life forms are killed, but the vegetarian doesn’t value those life forms AS much as the others. So until you can actually eliminate the “needless” death of any and all equally valuable life forms then you are no better than the meat eater you set yourself morally superior to.


Brighid
Edited to add-
Just a note: the fact that vegetarianism is subjective, does not make it hypocritical.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

free12thinker

[QUOTE]Originally posted by brighid:
That is complete BS. We certainly CAN and do teach old dogs new tricks – it’s called progress. The immoralities, don’t sound wrong, they simply aren’t immoral in every case. IF it were immoral, someone should be able to come up with a sound argument for the moral imperative of everyone switching to a meatless diet. It cannot be made because although we are all human, each of our bodies are unique and have similarities, but sometimes vastly different requirements.

I think you know I didn't mean that in a 100% literal way, of course some dogs have been taught new tricks. But certain ideas have been around for so long, that they are soceital "rights" and eating meat is one of them. Religion is one of them. Homosexuality isn't. Man to woman yields procreation and been openly practiced for so long that, to some people, it is the only right way to go.

Also- unless you can honestly state that you are willing to forfeit your life to save the life of a bird, fish, monkey or other animal, you don’t ACTUALLY place yourself equal to them, you only believe or pretend you do. Nor does the fact that I, and most humans, value their lives and human life above animal life make it wrong or even immoral.

I would be willing to risk myself to save another species.

free12thinker

I value them the same indeed. Here's some proof. A dog attacked my daughter, and had his tooth through her middle finger. I simply grabbed the dog, in a very light manner, by his gruff and took him to his owners house. They were frantic (fearing I would sue or something, anyway), they offered to have him put to sleep. I said dont be silly, he's just doing what comes natural, and I left it at that.

I also refuse to take medicine or use products that were made from any level of experimentation.

free12thinker