Rationalization of eating meat

Scroll to see replies

Smack

It is also undeniable that IQ tests are culturally biased, that IQ can easily be trained and therefore blacks who have to walk three miles each day to drink dirty water are not going to be as well suited to these tests than white people who get driven to school in their mum's 4x4, and that IQ is a crap measure of overall intelligence.

Thanks for answering this, I was starting to get really upset at "birdsong1" comments....

Reply 41

halfoflessthan50p

birdsong1

I think you misread. I was asking why the line would be drawn at the species level in particular, rather than at another, so your comment that "we are the same species" doesn't help much. And while the race and intelligence crap is discredited, it is undeniable that the average IQ of black people is less than that of white people. The other person was talking about "the average intelligence of species" and using IQ as a synonym, so it was natural to ask that question.

Lastly, in what sense is a pig less "sentient" than a human?

You could draw the line at the point where the animal starts being able to feel empathy. Another human could empathise with you but a pig simply doesnt have a complex enough brain to see anything from any other persepective than its own.

No animal other than humans have anywhere near the level of intelligence or capacity for abstract thought to even begin to understand a complex idea like vegetarianism on a conscious level.

Reply 42

birdsong1

cybergrad

Thanks for answering this, I was starting to get really upset at "birdsong1" comments....

If you manage to get upset at that, then you severely missed my point.

eat or be eaten!

halfoflessthan50p

Then is it okay to kill autistic people?

(To be more precise, one characterization of some autistic people is that they can't see things from other peoples' point of view. If, walking into a room, I'd see inside a box, and another person walks in, I might be unable to guess that the second person doesn't know what's in the box, because I do.)

halfoflessthan50p

No animal other than humans have anywhere near the level of intelligence or capacity for abstract thought to even begin to understand a complex idea like vegetarianism on a conscious level.

Even if so, why does that protect all humans (including those who don't have this intelligence)?

Reply 45

ThinkThereforeBe

cybergrad

Nature placed us on the top of the food chain, so why should we feel bad about it? I don't think lions are feeling upset for eating gazelles.....

Exactly. What makes us different to other animals? We're more advanced than them. This might suggest that being at the top means we should eat meat and be done with it but the PRIMARY difference between us and animals is our sophisticated sense of morality. If we're supposed to be the top of the food chain, surely by eating animals we lower ourselves to the place of a lion perhaps? What sets us aside is we can and should CHOOSE to stop the suffering of animals.

Reply 46

Moony12345

you missed the theory that meat taste ******* awesome :smile:

Reply 47

birdsong1

Moony12345

you missed the theory that meat taste ******* awesome :smile:

Not that I'd know from personal experience, but I hear human also tastes ******* awesome :wink:

Reply 48

halfoflessthan50p

birdsong1

Autism is a very misleading example. I might be completely wrong here but im not sure if any autistic people have the same kind of intelligence and thought processes as a pig. Even a severly autistic person might be able to draw a picture or build a tower out of blocks; things that a pig couldnt even begin to understand.

A closer example would probably be a human in a coma with little to no evidence of brain activity. I wouldnt eat them because it would physically disgust me because they look so much like a conscious human but i wouldnt find it anywhere near as morally reprehensible as eating an intelligent, conscious person capable of empathy.

birdsong1

Even if so, why does that protect all humans (including those who don't have this intelligence)?

Because they would do the same to you. People dont eat each other because they have respect for life and because they dont want to do something that they would find disgusting if someone else did it to them. A pig would eat me if it had the capacity to do so and it wouldnt be able to understand why that might be wrong.

Reply 49

SsEe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M
Parts of this are relevant.

Reply 50

birdsong1

halfoflessthan50p

Autism is a very misleading example.

Actually, no. If the line is drawn at empathy, then some autistic people, at least, would no longer be protected.

halfoflessthan50p

People dont eat each other because they have respect for life and because they dont want to do something that they would find disgusting if someone else did it to them. A pig would eat me if it had the capacity to do so and it wouldnt be able to understand why that might be wrong.

This is hypocritical (and I don't mean it in a bad way). Firstly, the exact same argument applies for why it is morally right for the pig to eat you. You complain that the pig wouldn't be able to understand why eating you might be wrong - only it's actually not wrong if your argument holds (and if your argument doesn't hold, booyah).

Since your argument is based on the assumption that the pig eating you is wrong, it just defeated itself (kinda cool, no?).

---

But I dare go further. I think a lot of the reason you adamantly think it wrong is the "disgust" you mentioned all around your post. You think eating the pig is right because you're not disgusted by it. But by a similar principle, the pig does not find it disgusting to eat you, so why is it at all wrong for it to do so? That's where the hypocrisy lies.

Reply 51

Jennybean

birdsong1

animals can be taught right/wrong in the same sense as a child can.

No, animals can be taught there is a relationship between their actions and consequences, that is not the same thing.

Reply 52

Paranoid Android 64

People seem to be forgetting that there are no such thing as objective morals, other than them being a social construct, without God (in which case why did he make meat taste so good?).

Meat-eaters and vegetarians alike may have their "moral" notions of why meat-eating is right/wrong, but since this is entirely subjective (often arising through upbringing) it cannot be applied to other humans. Morals and values developed in society as a means of protection from one another, and once "morality" starts to venture out of this function they cease to be relevant. So there. :eviltongue:

Reply 53

Lizia

It's tasty. I don't see why I need more rationalisation than that. I don't rationalise why I eat bread or tomatoes.

Reply 54

halfoflessthan50p

birdsong1

Actually, no. If the line is drawn at empathy, then some autistic people, at least, would no longer be protected.

Then im affraid i would have to say they dont necessarily deserve to be treated in exactly the same way as somebody who thinks like a conscious human. Obviously the ramifications and complications would be huge if we started eating brain-dead people instead of cows and chickens but on a purely logical moral level I wouldnt object.

I dont think its wrong for the pig to try and eat me. Its just an animal following its instincts, i wouldnt blame it.

I dont find anything wrong with lions eating gazelles either. Do you? Youre the vegetarian remember :biggrin:

Reply 55

birdsong1

Jennybean

No, animals can be taught there is a relationship between their actions and consequences, that is not the same thing.

The interesting argument is: actually, they might be the same thing. Maybe our brain can only take in these relationships, and so eventually associates certain actions with that sickening feeling we call "right", or that jubilant feeling we call "wrong".

But anyway, the less interesting argument is that, actually, we see dogs protecting their masters, something we don't explicitly train them to do. We also see dogs going around in packs; hence, it's not that much of a jump to say that dogs may have the concept of friendship/enemyship. This allows us to teach them some morality, perhaps not the finer distinctions.

SsEe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M
Parts of this are relevant.

Thanks, that's great :biggrin:

Reply 56

Lefty Leo

Interesting argument *eats mentally retarded person*

Reply 57

birdsong1

halfoflessthan50p

Perhaps you misunderstood. Autistic people still think like conscious humans. They can be highly intelligent. They (or some of them at least) just lack empathy.

Therefore, you are advocating being able to eat certain conscious and intelligent humans. Just to make it clear.

halfoflessthan50p

I dont think its wrong for the pig to try and eat me.

In this case, your argument for why it's okay for us to eat pigs fails, since it was dependent on that factoid.

I'm not a vegetarian either, see here.

Reply 58

IWantSomeMushu

We are the dominant species, therefore we make the rules.

Reply 59

IceDiveFresh

What?

Who tries to justify eating meat? I eat it because I like the taste.

If a vegetarian/vegan asked me to justify I'd say, "Because I like it, **** off and mind your own business vegetarian".