LordSnooty

It might explain why people treat cats and dogs differently, but it provides no moral or ethical justification for it.

Paul

The Other Michael

What you do or don't eat is, for many people, probably due to socialization/indoctrination. Available food sources probably have an effect on that too, at least in the old days when you ate whatever grew locally.

There are cultures that eat dog, insects, insert odd-sounding to you food here, etc.

If your mother was in the habit of rewarding you with a tasty bit of grasshopper when you were good you might well find grasshoppers a normal and acceptable food item.

cheers,
Michael

Valmorian

Are you saying you were taken aback by the fact that people were hostile when you basically called them immoral? This surprises you?

I'm not really sure why some ethical vegetarians are surprised at such a reaction. You're telling someone that they are immoral, of COURSE they're going to be hostile to such an accusation.

Of course I'm a moral relativist, so I have no problem with ethical vegetarians calling me immoral. It's simply their opinion. *shrug* Christians call me immoral too, and I put that at the same weight.

August Spies

What criteria do you use for deciding whether an organism is "legitimate human food"?

antichris: probably if it is healthy for humans to eat. Regardless, insects are a major part of many humans diets.

Pigs are actually significantly smarter than cats or dogs.

well this has been debated, but its rather irrelevant. LIke I said, I dont' see anything wrong with someone eating dog.

would you have a problem using a natural sponge?

LordSnooty

That would depend on whether sponges were capable of suffering. I don't see how a sponge compares to a dog.

Paul

The AntiChris

Valmorian

I don't think I ever actually accused anyone of being "immoral" although other posters certainly did (and far worse!).

No, what really took me aback was the ridicule and scorn poured upon the idea that anyone should feel concern for the perceived suffering of animals raised and slaughtered for food. Whether or not you agree, or care, that animals raised for food really do suffer, it doesn't seem to me to be such an outlandish notion that some people actually do believe that these animals suffer and care enough to change their eating habits.

I don't think it's necessary for ethical vegetarians to explicitly state their views for the meat-eater to take offence - the mere existence of ethical vegetarianism, with its tacit implication that meat-eating is immoral, appears to be an insult to some meat-eaters.

I don't think it matters if you're a relativist, subjectivist, objectivist or whatever. If you don't find the ethical vegetarian argument persuasive then you can either ignore it as simply someone else's opinion or you can argue rationally.

The outrage displayed by some meat-eaters at being thought of as "immoral" seems to me to go beyond what I would have expected of people who are totally at ease with their eating choices.

Unless, of course, the ethical vegetarian argument touches a particularly sensitive nerve.

Chris

Valmorian

When one states that eating meat is an immoral act, it's implicitly implied that those who eat meat are therefore immoral. I'm sure you can see this.




Um, I see no ridicule or scorn to such an idea here. I see ridicule and scorn placed upon the idea that these beliefs are somehow more justifiable than meat-eating. But then, that's to be expected whenever someone gets sanctimonious about their particular ethical code.. *shrug*





More power to 'em. Personally, I don't have a problem with meat eating. I have no emotional attachments to the cow, chicken, etc..




That may be, though in my experience, it is far more common to see vegetarians taking offense to the habits of meat eaters than the other way around.




*sigh* Suggesting that the argument is not argued rationally when one chooses to eat meat? What rational argument is necessary other than:
1. I enjoy meat.
2. I don't grant non-humans civil rights.




I disagree emphatically. Call anyone immoral for doing something they enjoy and you're likely to get them offended. It's simply easiest to see with Vegetarianism because it IS so often portrayed as some kind of "Holier than thou" ethical standard.

Or they're simply sick of having a section of the population consider them immoral for their food choice.

LordSnooty

What would you have vegetarians do, exactly? Pretend that eating meat is moral just to satisfy you? Sorry mate - I don't think so.

Whether you like it or not, this is a moral issue. Your morals clearly differ from mine. I don't call you immoral. But you have an immoral attitude to animals, in my opinion.

I keep having to say 'in my opinion' because apparently some people don't bother to read the clear inference. Morality is, sadly, subjective. We each make up our own rules. I would like to avoid causing pain, suffering and death. You would not, because you like the taste of flesh. These two views are incompatible with one another. Naturally, since my belief is necessarily the one that causes the least suffering, I consider it the more moral option. You consider yours equally moral because you don't care about animals. Fine. Difference of opinion.

So what is your problem with that? Why are you so cut up about it? You're over-sensitive for some reason.

I'm pro-choice. Pro-lifers would therefore think me immoral. But do I care? Do I act outraged because of what they think? Clearly not. I'm outraged that they try and remove basic rights from people, but I don't throw a ridiculous fit of indignation because 'they think I'm immoral'.

Paul

LordSnooty

I hope that's not a reference to me, since I have never accused meat eaters of being immoral people.

Paul

Valmorian

*laugh* Had you bothered to read my posts, you'd know I don't really care WHAT you think of me. Just like I don't care that the Christian down the road thinks I'm immoral for not going to church.




Well obviously my morals differ from yours.. *shrug*




I would like to avoid causing pain, suffering and death to humans. My attitude towards non-human animals depends upon how much the given animal means to me.. *shrug*




*chuckle* You DO realize that if you committed suicide right now, you'd cause even LESS suffering and death in the long run, right?




I care about some animals. It depends upon the relationship of the animal to me.




Huh? How so? What exactly have I said that is "so sensitive"?

Nor do I give one whit about what you think of my morality, provided that you don't try to force your own moral code upon me. You must have me mistaken for someone else..

..or are you perhaps being too sensitive?