This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Do you think universities should ban meat from their menus?
- Who else is vegan on here?
- Group 1 Carcinogens
- chicken use by date
- TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?
- vegetarian at st hilda’s
- Human foods for dogs
- vegan/ gluten free at uni
- GCSE English spoken language endorsement
- Not eating enough protein
- My mum is trying to make me eat more
- Help!! I need some advice
- Do macros matter on a cut?
- any other vegans here?
- What food gets stuck between your teeth?
- Should I take Protein shakes if I want to make my skinny arms huge?
- Is it okay for a vegan to work for a supermarket?
- Vegan in halls
- Save money on food and eating out
- visit vietnam - Vietnamese food
Rationalization of eating meat
Scroll to see replies
ogloom
We are humans. We can't allow/justify the killing of ourselves else the whole world falls into chaos. We need to preserve our species.
All other animals are not essential to maintaining civilisation.
Therefore, all animals that aren't endangered/threatened should be consumed to further our species.
The problem with OP and friends is that they develop a stupid "emotional" bond with all animals which clouds their logic. All animals die, we are just speeding up the process! Besides, we are the most important species on this planet. Without us, there is no chance of escaping once the sun blows up.
All other animals are not essential to maintaining civilisation.
Therefore, all animals that aren't endangered/threatened should be consumed to further our species.
The problem with OP and friends is that they develop a stupid "emotional" bond with all animals which clouds their logic. All animals die, we are just speeding up the process! Besides, we are the most important species on this planet. Without us, there is no chance of escaping once the sun blows up.
Hang on. You think that if we stop eating meat we'll become extinct? Why is an emotional bond stupid? All humans die as well, so is Shipman's case justifiable to you?
'there is no chance of escaping once the sun blows up'.
Make sure Indiana holds onto his hat this time.
birdsong1
Face it, humans like to eat meat, and the species divider is convenient. Humans also like to rationalize, so we'll come up with all sorts of crackpot moral theories on why it's okay to kill non-humans, but not humans.
All these theories (besides being highly arbitrary anyway) fail because we're too similar to animals in all respects. A theory based on intelligence will fail because some of us aren't more intelligent than animals (think babies). A theory based on potential intelligence will similarly fail (think brain damaged people). A theory based on our knowledge of morality will fail not only because some of us don't have said knowledge, but because animals can be taught right/wrong in the same sense as a child can.
In the end, it comes down to the two facts I outlined at beginning. We like to eat meat, and saying "it's okay to kill only nonhumans" is easy and conveniently gets us the juicy bones. Trying to justify it in any other way is just deluding yourself.
All these theories (besides being highly arbitrary anyway) fail because we're too similar to animals in all respects. A theory based on intelligence will fail because some of us aren't more intelligent than animals (think babies). A theory based on potential intelligence will similarly fail (think brain damaged people). A theory based on our knowledge of morality will fail not only because some of us don't have said knowledge, but because animals can be taught right/wrong in the same sense as a child can.
In the end, it comes down to the two facts I outlined at beginning. We like to eat meat, and saying "it's okay to kill only nonhumans" is easy and conveniently gets us the juicy bones. Trying to justify it in any other way is just deluding yourself.
rofl rofl
ogloom
We are humans. We can't allow/justify the killing of ourselves else the whole world falls into chaos. We need to preserve our species.
All other animals are not essential to maintaining civilisation.
Therefore, all animals that aren't endangered/threatened should be consumed to further our species.
The problem with OP and friends is that they develop a stupid "emotional" bond with all animals which clouds their logic. All animals die, we are just speeding up the process! Besides, we are the most important species on this planet. Without us, there is no chance of escaping once the sun blows up.
All other animals are not essential to maintaining civilisation.
Therefore, all animals that aren't endangered/threatened should be consumed to further our species.
The problem with OP and friends is that they develop a stupid "emotional" bond with all animals which clouds their logic. All animals die, we are just speeding up the process! Besides, we are the most important species on this planet. Without us, there is no chance of escaping once the sun blows up.
Pretty much this.
We don't kill each other or steal from each other because it is a lot easier to survive if we work together.
In terms of our survival and development it's a pretty complex issue. A lot of meat production is harming us because it harms the environment and is not sustainable. But on the other hand, to ban meat eating tomorrow would cause too much economic upheaval and there is simply not enough support for it, that it would put our development back.
Personally I think the more things we're capable of eating, the better, easier to survive then.
birdsong1
Face it, humans like to eat meat, and the species divider is convenient. Humans also like to rationalize, so we'll come up with all sorts of crackpot moral theories on why it's okay to kill non-humans, but not humans.
Crackpot theories? A little bias don't you think.
All these theories (besides being highly arbitrary anyway) fail because we're too similar to animals in all respects. A theory based on intelligence will fail because some of us aren't more intelligent than animals (think babies).
You cannot say all the theories will fail in this respect, itis totally irrelevant that a baby might not rationalize eating animals, because the instinctual behaviour is near to the only behaviour the baby has to begin with, and through time the intelligence and experience expands. There are no other animals that are as intelligent as humans, extending to the very important point that humans experience and comprehend emotions in such a more explicit way.
A theory based on potential intelligence will similarly fail (think brain damaged people). A theory based on our knowledge of morality will fail not only because some of us don't have said knowledge, but because animals can be taught right/wrong in the same sense as a child can
The point about brain damaged people can be abruptly dimissed, in the same sense as your point with babies before.
There is knowledge of morality, and there is morality that is not taught, but rather is an instinct. You or I do not have the qualification to point out about intuative morals, which overall is the only logical way of thinknig around the point you made, however it can be logically said that moral intuition is a very key part of being able to justify killing another human that provides little or no benefit (except in cases such as making sure that person doesn't continue to do something which is inherently wrong, I.e. continuing to murder) where as the benefits of killing an animal are great, and although not completely necessary, in terms of the fact humans don't need animals to live food-wise, it can be strongly argued they are next to necessary.
In the end, it comes down to the two facts I outlined at beginning. We like to eat meat, and saying "it's okay to kill only nonhumans" is easy and conveniently gets us the juicy bones. Trying to justify it in any other way is just deluding yourself.
Thanks for telling me your point of view, but stating it as a fact doesn't appeal to the bias of your thread.
David.Williamz
--->
The point about brain damaged people can be dimissed, in the same sense as your point with babies before.
Actually, this is kind of funny. I anticipated the objection about babies, and so put in the example of brain damaged people to which the objection no longer applies. So this guy makes the objection, and then concludes by saying "brain damaged people can be similarly dismissed".
You could think of it like this: By default, killing is not morally wrong.
However, most of us would not like to be killed ourselves. So we've formed an treaty with all other humans "you won't kill me, and I won't kill you".
The reasons we've formed such an treaty with only humans is because:
We often don't have anything to fear from animals. A sheep or cow isn't going to try to kill me anyway.
A lion or tiger may attempt to kill me - but in such a situation, it isn't going to know/care whether there's an agreement or not.
An ant isn't going to be able to kill me.
So for those reasons, we don't form such agreements with animals. The existence of a treaty is going to make no difference as to whether or not I get killed by an animal.
There's also the issue of babies, mentally impaired people, and pet animals. These are often extremely cared for by ordinary humans. They don't want their baby to be killed, nor do I want mine to be killed etc. And so the treaty extends further to cover these as well.
However, most of us would not like to be killed ourselves. So we've formed an treaty with all other humans "you won't kill me, and I won't kill you".
The reasons we've formed such an treaty with only humans is because:
We often don't have anything to fear from animals. A sheep or cow isn't going to try to kill me anyway.
A lion or tiger may attempt to kill me - but in such a situation, it isn't going to know/care whether there's an agreement or not.
An ant isn't going to be able to kill me.
So for those reasons, we don't form such agreements with animals. The existence of a treaty is going to make no difference as to whether or not I get killed by an animal.
There's also the issue of babies, mentally impaired people, and pet animals. These are often extremely cared for by ordinary humans. They don't want their baby to be killed, nor do I want mine to be killed etc. And so the treaty extends further to cover these as well.
I've been vegetarian for about 2 months now and I've realised I don't actually need meat to get all the nutrients I need. I'm just as healthy (if not more) now as I was then so I don't see a good reason to revert to eating meat.
I never tell people that they shouldn't eat meat as I don't like being high and mighty or forcing my views on other - I only became veggie myself after 19 years! But what annoys me is when people try to dodge the subject by making a joke of vegetariansim or its followers - they don't give a reasonable defence for why they eat meat they just (usually) make some highly original (/sacarsm) statement such as: ''omgz but meat tastes good lulz'', but that just doesn't work - you garnish it and cook it to make it taste 'good'. Go and butcher a cow and sink your teeth into it in the abertoir and then tell me it 'tastes good' - doubt it. Fruit and veg tastes good without having to mask the taste of corpse.
I totally understand how people are meat eaters as it's a huge industry which is in our faces from the moment we can use a knife and fork - our parents feed us it, we know no other option.
But once your old enough and educated enough to think about the morality behind it, I don't understand why anyone would continue to eat it. It's not financial (it cost the same to be vegetarian) and you can get all the nutrients you need on a veggie diet. The only reason which seems to stand out the most is that individuals can't be bothered to make the change or they keep their eyes and ears shut to it all or that they are completely ignorant.
Just my two cents.
I never tell people that they shouldn't eat meat as I don't like being high and mighty or forcing my views on other - I only became veggie myself after 19 years! But what annoys me is when people try to dodge the subject by making a joke of vegetariansim or its followers - they don't give a reasonable defence for why they eat meat they just (usually) make some highly original (/sacarsm) statement such as: ''omgz but meat tastes good lulz'', but that just doesn't work - you garnish it and cook it to make it taste 'good'. Go and butcher a cow and sink your teeth into it in the abertoir and then tell me it 'tastes good' - doubt it. Fruit and veg tastes good without having to mask the taste of corpse.
I totally understand how people are meat eaters as it's a huge industry which is in our faces from the moment we can use a knife and fork - our parents feed us it, we know no other option.
But once your old enough and educated enough to think about the morality behind it, I don't understand why anyone would continue to eat it. It's not financial (it cost the same to be vegetarian) and you can get all the nutrients you need on a veggie diet. The only reason which seems to stand out the most is that individuals can't be bothered to make the change or they keep their eyes and ears shut to it all or that they are completely ignorant.
Just my two cents.
tazarooni89
However, most of us would not like to be killed ourselves. So we've formed an treaty with all other humans "you won't kill me, and I won't kill you".
Where is this treaty, anyway? By "treaty", I presume you mean the way in which people started punishing other people for killing humans, and so eventually the killing stopped (in some places more than others). But this almost certainly does not affect the morality of the issue; after all, you are essentially talking about the making of laws.
I'm not a vegetarian either, see here
Sorry youre right, I didnt read that.
birdsong1
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.
Therefore, you are advocating being able to eat certain conscious and intelligent humans. Just to make it clear.
Yes starting with you!
I dont believe that someone can be highly intelligent and completely incapable of empathy.
birdsong1
In this case, your argument for why it's okay for us to eat pigs fails, since it was dependent on that factoid.
No its not, your assuming that I think humans and pigs should start off with exactly the same rights and privledges. I think they should have less because they are inherantly less intelligent and lacking in empathy. To recap:
•
I eat pigs because they lack empathy
•
This means they would eat me given the chance and could have no notion of right/wrong
•
Its not their fault that they lack empathy. I dont blame them. its just the way they are
•
If i could bestow pigs with the gift of human intelligence i would but i cant so its irrelevant
So I'd conclude:
•
its okay for humans to eat pigs
•
its okay for pigs to eat anyone
•
its not okay for humans to eat humans
birdsong1
Where is this treaty, anyway? By "treaty", I presume you mean the way in which people started punishing other people for killing humans, and so eventually the killing stopped (in some places more than others). But this almost certainly does not affect the morality of the issue; after all, you are essentially talking about the making of laws.
Yes, I'm talking about the laws which prevent us from killing humans, because they are the same laws which protect us from getting killed. A human doesn't want to get killed so he is glad that these laws exist, and so he sticks by them. If he chooses not to stick by them, other people will have no incentive to continue to include him under the protection of these laws. The laws are a mutual agreement between humans.
The "morality" of the issue can be seen as a separate concept altogether - whether one feels guilty and remorseful after killing is down to them really. It's subjective. So we say "if you feel guilty after killing an animal, then go ahead, be a vegetarian".
But it is more of a hindrance to human society and survival if humans kill each other, rather than if they kill animals.
Tefhel
Why does everything need to be rationally justified?
Meat tastes good. Therefore people eat it. End of.
Meat tastes good. Therefore people eat it. End of.
the second sentence is logically true, but what the **** does that have to do with the question of whether it's right or wrong? there are a lot of other things that people like doing, but they don't. according to you if something is good and therefore people do it then it's ok and doesn't need to be rationally justified.
edit: read the post above by somethingbeautiful, the reason you've give such a **** reason for eating meat is because you have nothing else to say but still want to eat meat, but somehow feel like you have to justify it, instead of saying you couldn't care less.
tazarooni89
laws...morality is a separate issue
If any of us were actually worried about laws, this argument would be trivial:
It's legal to kill animals, not legal to kill humans. Vegetarians lose, GG.
But actually, in these arguments, we're not talking about the laws. We're talking about the morality.
Most vegetarians are forced to eat more processed foods and are therefore compromising their health.
Yes - i know there is a lot of poor quality meat out there due to the ridiculous things we are allowed to feed them, but I would argue that high quality meat is important.
If you are a vegetarian and you are not eating organic vegetables you are at an even higher risk as these are deficient in the vital nutrients which we need.
To simplify if we have two (even if they are both poor) sources of nutrition, and you decide to stop eating one of them - you will suffer and that´s enough justification for me.
Yes - i know there is a lot of poor quality meat out there due to the ridiculous things we are allowed to feed them, but I would argue that high quality meat is important.
If you are a vegetarian and you are not eating organic vegetables you are at an even higher risk as these are deficient in the vital nutrients which we need.
To simplify if we have two (even if they are both poor) sources of nutrition, and you decide to stop eating one of them - you will suffer and that´s enough justification for me.
Before anyone asks - I would only eat a human if my survival depended on it and no, i would not kill them for it (even if they were a nutitional superfood).
We are at the top of the chain folks (Until the aliens arrive hehe) and anything else would be de-volution.
Anyone heard of babysoup out of interest?
We are at the top of the chain folks (Until the aliens arrive hehe) and anything else would be de-volution.
Anyone heard of babysoup out of interest?
birdsong1
Face it, humans like to eat meat, and the species divider is convenient. Humans also like to rationalize, so we'll come up with all sorts of crackpot moral theories on why it's okay to kill non-humans, but not humans.
All these theories (besides being highly arbitrary anyway) fail because we're too similar to animals in all respects. A theory based on intelligence will fail because some of us aren't more intelligent than animals (think babies). A theory based on potential intelligence will similarly fail (think brain damaged people). A theory based on our knowledge of morality will fail not only because some of us don't have said knowledge, but because animals can be taught right/wrong in the same sense as a child can.
In the end, it comes down to the two facts I outlined at beginning. We like to eat meat, and saying "it's okay to kill only nonhumans" is easy and conveniently gets us the juicy bones. Trying to justify it in any other way is just deluding yourself.
All these theories (besides being highly arbitrary anyway) fail because we're too similar to animals in all respects. A theory based on intelligence will fail because some of us aren't more intelligent than animals (think babies). A theory based on potential intelligence will similarly fail (think brain damaged people). A theory based on our knowledge of morality will fail not only because some of us don't have said knowledge, but because animals can be taught right/wrong in the same sense as a child can.
In the end, it comes down to the two facts I outlined at beginning. We like to eat meat, and saying "it's okay to kill only nonhumans" is easy and conveniently gets us the juicy bones. Trying to justify it in any other way is just deluding yourself.
It's natural for us to eat meat. I don't find myself needing to give any justification for eating carrots, peas, beans or potatoes. Since this is natural to me it would be wrong for someone to come up to me and say "justify your eating of carrots". Instead, if they have a good reason for humans to go against their natural urges, they should put it forward.
It is fundamentally different from, say, murder, where everyone has an urge to not kill other humans (most likely as a result of the evolutionary benefits that brought our species). Here, you have to justify any murders as they run against human nature.
I really think that human nature is very important in this question, and should not be ignored.
Well I'll just point out that just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right
BUT, it's not wrong, it tastes good and is full of essential nutrients, proteins, etc. The question is why not eat meat?
BUT, it's not wrong, it tastes good and is full of essential nutrients, proteins, etc. The question is why not eat meat?
halfoflessthan50p
I dont believe that someone can be highly intelligent and completely incapable of empathy.
... Oh, thank God you don't believe that. You should tell the autistics they're just faking it. Or maybe tell the dictionary people to redefine "completely incapable" to mean whatever you want it to mean.
Also, think God you don't believe pigs are capable of even the slightest bit of empathy, enough to rival the most autistic person.
halfoflessthan50p
Then I ask something similar as on the 2nd page. Why do you draw the categorical distinction at species, humans vs pigs? Why not blacks vs whites, Americans vs random murderous tribe, everyone else vs certain unintelligent autistic people? (In order of increasing likelihood.) Why should not the former group be allowed to eat the latter group?
Related discussions
- Do you think universities should ban meat from their menus?
- Who else is vegan on here?
- Group 1 Carcinogens
- chicken use by date
- TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?
- vegetarian at st hilda’s
- Human foods for dogs
- vegan/ gluten free at uni
- GCSE English spoken language endorsement
- Not eating enough protein
- My mum is trying to make me eat more
- Help!! I need some advice
- Do macros matter on a cut?
- any other vegans here?
- What food gets stuck between your teeth?
- Should I take Protein shakes if I want to make my skinny arms huge?
- Is it okay for a vegan to work for a supermarket?
- Vegan in halls
- Save money on food and eating out
- visit vietnam - Vietnamese food
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
