shamon

Humans are omnivorous. This means that humans CAN eat meat. It doesn’t mean they require meat, only that in times of famine we can eat it. It’s just another aspect of humans’ generalized physiology (neoteny). It is not needed in the human diet but can be used as a last resort.

Therefore, can anyone disagree with this statement: If humans don’t NEED meat in their diet, then it is ALWAYS immoral to NEEDLESSLY kill an animal for food.

The debate is a lot simpler than people make it sound.

The AntiChris

That's what I thought when I first arrived here.

Chris

tronvillain

Permit me to rewrite your original paragraph so that it is at least somewhat accurate:

tronvillain

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.

99Percent

I agree with tronvillain, you oversimplified.

Define "need" and "needlessly"

Define "animal". Are insects animals?

Bill Snedden

I agree. In addition, if one kills an animal for food, in what way can one be said to have killed "needlessly"? Regardless of whether or not one must consume meat, one's killing of an animal for food is not without purpose (without "need" or "needless").

Regards,

Bill Snedden

MeBeMe

Yeah, I'll have to agree with everyone else as well.

DRFseven

shamon, I don't think your statement is oversimplified; I think it's just wrong.

For one thing, it's true that most humans don't need meat, but not true that meat is not a requirement for some. Meat is like a shortcut for some essential nutrients that can be unavailable to some people who live in restricted circumstances. For instance, in some villages, families can keep a few chickens outside or a hog in a small lot that wouldn't grow nearly enough grain to supply their protein needs. And these families usually don't have access to certain supplements, such as flaxseed oil, either.

But for most people reading these posts, you're right, meat is not necessary. However, how have you established that need mitigates morality? Most people don't need to wear yellow to survive, yet you probably wouldn't say it's immoral for them to wear it. What is it about killing things that is immoral?

tronvillain

The statement is so simplified that the statement is not just wrong, it doesn't even follow. That is, it might theoretically follow if you added a few premises, but that would make it right.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

brighid

Vegetarianism can be healthy and in some segments of society it is a viable alternative, but just because we live in a “civilized” society doesn’t mean all members of that society have the luxurious option of obtaining a balanced diet, more or less a balanced vegetarian diet has larger p/unit requirements then does an omnivorous diet in order to obtain the essential protein and complete amino acid intake.

A human needs to eat a diet rich in specific nutrients in order to maintain and obtain optimal health. Often times the necessary resources to obtain those nutritional needs are best served through the combination of meats, vegetables, fruits, whole grains and nuts. The outright label of eating meat as not a need for all people is categorically wrong, nor is killing a domesticated animal for it’s meat, hide or other organs equivalent to criminal murder as it is legally defined.

Brighid