Eating Animals

I've spoken with plenty of animal-eaters in my time, and one of their favourite reasons (excuses?) for doing so seems to be that we are simply superior to the animals we eat. We are the dominant species on the planet, and so it is our right to eat whatever inferior animals are under our dominion.

So what if a highly advanced, super-intelligent alien species arrives, subjugates us, and becomes the dominant species on the planet? Presumably meat-eaters should have no problems with their systematically breeding, caging, slaughtering and eating us - it would be their right as our superiors.

Any thoughts?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

steph2011

I understand that there are concerns about the welfare of animals when human beings like us eat them. but if we allow every single animal born on this planet to live then that will mean we are harming the environment the world is overpopulated enough as it is adding more animals will contribute to so much more overpopulation as well as to some of the greenhouse effects

Reply 2

AperfectBalance

Personally I am one of the people who believes in the whole superior to other animals thing but I believe there is a threshold and certainly anything more intelligent than us is past that threshold but since we are the only animal I consider past the threshold at the moment I do not quite know what the lowest intelligence I would consider superior.
One quick question are you a vegetarian/vegan?

Reply 3

mphysical

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

The animals people eat have been bred solely for that purpose. That's why we eat them. It is nothing to do with superiority.So your whole post is nonsense.

Reply 4

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by mphysical

The animals people eat have been bred solely for that purpose. That's why we eat them. It is nothing to do with superiority.So your whole post is nonsense.

What you've just said is that we breed the animals because we eat them and we eat the animals because we've bred them. What gives us the right to do any of that?

Reply 5

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by steph2011

There are massively greater numbers of animals on Earth as a result of our breeding them for slaughter. Ceasing to eat animals will mean much lower populations and much smaller greenhouse gas emissions.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 6

Drewski

What if cows became vampires?

Insane hypothetical.

Reply 7

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by AperfectBalance

Yes, I am vegetarian and I hope to be vegan eventually.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the threshold - you mean a threshold of intelligence, beyond which species simply shouldn't be eaten, even by their "superiors"?

Reply 8

AperfectBalance

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

Yes.

Reply 9

Drewski

You choose not to eat animals or use animal products. Fine.

I do.

By what right do you get to dictate what choices I make?

Reply 10

mphysical

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

What you've just said is that we breed the animals because we eat them and we eat the animals because we've bred them. What gives us the right to do any of that?

I take it that this is your real point. Not the utter nonsense in your first post.
Nothing gives us the right to do that, we do so because of opportunity.

Reply 11

goam

There's literally no valid argument against vegetarianism apart from 'meat tastes nice' People will make up any excuse to continue doing it

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 12

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Drewski

You choose not to eat animals or use animal products. Fine.

I do.

By what right do you get to dictate what choices I make?

I don't get to dictate what you do, nor am I trying to. All I can do is try to persuade you. If I could make you stop consuming animals, I wouldn't, because that would be an immoral infringement on your free will.

Original post by Millieconfused

excellent editing skills btw

Reply 15

Millieconfused

Original post by goam

excellent editing skills btw

Thanks

Not mine tho :ninja:

Reply 16

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by mphysical

I take it that this is your real point. Not the utter nonsense in your first post.
Nothing gives us the right to do that, we do so because of opportunity.

My first point was essentially an argument against the notion, "might makes right". You are now more or less saying that we are physically capable of exploiting, breeding, and slaughtering animals; that much I can't argue with; we are definitely doing that. My point is that we shouldn't be doing it and have no right to. You have yet to forward a valid argument for why we should.

Reply 17

mphysical

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

My first point was essentially an argument against the notion, "might makes right". ............. You have yet to forward a valid argument for why we should.

I don't have to forward a valid argument of why we have a right. it is nothing to do with a 'right'. We do it because the opportunity is there.

Hitler and Stalin did not slaughter millions because they felt it was their right.
They did it because they wanted to and could.

Reply 18

username2313507

What gives a lion the right to eat an antelope?

Reply 19

goam

Original post by Drewski

You choose not to eat animals or use animal products. Fine.

I do.

By what right do you get to dictate what choices I make?

Ethical vegans (I'm not) would argue that eating meat/animal products is a NOT a personal choice.

The problem with this reasoning, is that it assumes the only person effected by your dietary choices is you, the moral agent. This is the case when it comes to choosing an apple or an orange, beyond which grower profits, but not so when choosing to consume animal products. This is because in this decision making process, the person most effected by the decision is the animal being consumed, and their needs, preferences and choices are not being taken into account by the person choosing. A personal choice ceases to be a matter of personal preference when those choices have victims, when they effect other beings. In the case of animal products, it could not be clearer that other beings are directly effected in that are being held captive, exploited, and killed for the enjoyment or sustenance of the person making the decision.

This dismissal of all moral criticism under the justification of “personal choice” only ever seems to surface where eating animals is concerned; if any human were committing any other harmful action this excuse would be rightly dismissed as the nonsense it is. For example, if a person decided that they would enjoy watching dog fights, and they arranged a small room in their house for such a purpose, no one would accept the idea that this was their “personal choice” and therefore we should leave them to it. Diet has no special moral significance over any other form of consumption; if we can condemn a person for visiting Seaworld or a bull fight, we can certainly condemn them for paying for an animal to be slaughtered on their behalf.