DRFseven

Where do you come up with these statements? I've said several times that eating meat does not seem immoral to me. However, it DOES seem immoral to many people; there is no litmus test, you know. Morals are opinions and, not surprisingly, humans often differ in those opinions.

Eating meat is immoral in the society in which you live and it is NOT immoral in the society in which you live. Society is not a discreet morality-choosing entity (just look at the abortion issue), but, rather, it is made up of individuals with personal moral codes. Plenty of people in your society now think smoking is wrong, to the extent that most children are now actively taught in school and via public service announcements in the media that they should not smoke. But only 50 years ago, hardly anyone thought it was wrong. In my state, 100 years ago, so many people considered it immoral for a single female teacher to frequent ice cream parlors in the company of men other than their husbands or brothers that they made a law against it (and against female teachers having red hair). By the way, the legality of something is peripheral to its morality; for instance, do you consider it immoral to drive without proof of insurance?

SmashingIdols

You set out implying that this was a moral issue, not me.

Answer one question:

Why did YOU name this thread "Moral Implications of The China Study:"?

If it is a moral issue, then state your case as such. Tell me why my consumption of any animal products is immoral.

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

The AntiChris

I haven't mentioned the moraliity of meat eating at all on this thread.

I just strongly object to to your continual characterisation of vegetarianism as irrational merely because it is a minority activity.

There are valid arguments for both sides of this argument, so you really ought to be able to argue your case without insulting vegetarians by comparing them to "abortion clinic protestors and bombers".

Chris

SmashingIdols

Chris, the title of this thread is "Moral Implications of The China Study." You were in fact taking the position that morality changes through some "enlightened group." Read your quote above, and please stop trying to characterize me as unethical due to my abandonment of vegan philosohpy.

I merely pointed out that by taking a stance on moral grounds you are assuming a tactic that implies some objective morality, one that supersedes and takes precedence over the subjective morality of society itself. That does indeed make strange bedfellows with others that use this tactic...

Irrational characterization of Vegetarians? Me? My wife is vegetarian, my daughter vegetarian, and I am vegetarian except for the occasional fish flesh that I consume (largely considered vegetarian). I have also admitted to consuming beef four times. We abandoned veganism, the total abstention from animal product consumption.

My continued assualt is against the contention that the total elimination of animal products is healthier than the moderate approach my family now pursues. Talking to my wife, she insists that she feels better now with the inclusion of eggs and dairy products in her diet. I know I feel better.

I have been asking for someone to please just state the moral case, as the title of this thread implies. While the issues of morality may have been somehow implied by this study, they were never part of the study itself.

So, once again:I think the "moral implications" of this study are little more than conjecture; they were certainly not part of this study - if you or Dr. feel differently, state the case please.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

DRFseven

Yes, and I have repeatedly stated, it IS a moral issue for some people. Not for me. Got that?

Because many people (vegetarians and non-vegetarians, alike) regard diet/health as a moral issue. Since these people consider it immoral to allow the body to become unhealthy, I am saying there are, then, implications arising from the China Study which have prompted the endorsements by the ADA and the FDA. For instance, the cholesterol-ridden meat-and-potatoes man, who thinks it is immoral to be unhealthy, either needs to change his diet or his moral sensibilities.

Since I have reiterated that such is not MY position, I don't know why you can't get that thought out of your head, but I can, if you'd like, ASSUME that position for the sake of argument.

OK, that position might go something like this:

1. Moral opinions are objective; that is, there are things that are objectively right and wrong.

2. Since the purpose of life is survival, then health matters become moral issues due to their association with survival.

3. Since meat-eating leads to cholesterol buildup, which is the number one cause of heart disease, which is the number one cause of death in my culture, I should stop eating meat.

Remember, this is not MY position; it is A position.

SmashingIdols

I have met a lot of types, but other than a very fringe group of our society I know of nobody else who considers health a moral issue. If there is some specific example, please provide it - I am curious as to who these people are, and how what doctrine they are teaching. Veeerrrrryyyy unusual...

However, I now realize you are saying that this is not your position. Also, that you were not stating any such moral position.

So, if I am understanding, you just thought that 'on the chance some people of the mindset that health is a moral issue were reading this forum,' you would post the above study, with the above title; is this correct?

Kind of a public service announcement for the "health is moral" crowd, right?

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

DRFseven

No, I posted as a direct result of several members stating that they consider choice of diet to be a moral issue. "Is Eating Meat Immoral?" has been a staple question in this forum since I first joined, and it's not always vegetarians who espouse this belief; sometimes it's meat-eaters (see <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000113&p=4" target="_blank"> one of brighid's reponses here)</a>.

I challenged the reasoning that led them to believe that just because THEY felt so, that EVERYONE was compelled to feel the same way, but never got anywhere; they deserted. I'd be happy to pick it up again if I have any takers; I don't mind an argument.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>

Thor Q. Mada

Just would like to invite opinions on the following:
Do you guys think that it his morally defendable in a place like Europe, were virtually health care is paid for by the community, to willingly smoke, (with a proven health risk not only for the smoker, but also from people around him), or being grossly overweight or any other activity which has shown to be statistically a health hazard.??(such as the relationship between animal fat and cancer and coronary problems?)

SmashingIdols

DRFseven: No, that is not an argument that I either believe in or wish to defend "for the sake of an argument." I do not consider any such argument as rational.

Furthermore, I am astonished that anyone not from the dark-ages would believe that health and morality are intertwined. I thought most homo-sapiens had moved past the concept that illness was caused by daemons inhabiting the bodies of sinners. This to me is especially irritating because people who would make any such claim about animal-product consumption must be clueless to the real-life hardship that much of the world endures, which would be increased even moreso by this new "moral" requirement. At best, it could only apply to an urbanized subset of any culture.

Last but not least, my wife reviewing this mess has pointed out that I keep talking about animal-products, which to us includes ALL products either produced by animals (like dairy(all forms, cow, dree, goat, etc.), honey and waxes, skins), or rendered by their consumption (flesh products of poultry, swine, cattle, dogs, horses, and all manner of fish).

Are you taking the position for the elimination of all animal-products, or just "meat?" I would appreciate it if you would clarify this.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

SmashingIdols

Thor

I think that socialized medicine is immoral!

Just kidding, however it is only inviting problems like you stated above. It does not seem an equitable system to me to have free health care, paid by taxing all citizens. It creates the scenario you pointed out above. Nice post...