If you can't kill an animal should you eat it?

Watch this thread
This discussion is closed.
Anonymous #1
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
So what do you think. If you would feel terrible for killing an animal or wouldn't even be able to do it at all, should you eat it (after someone else has killed it)? We are all faced with this every day: animals are slaughtered in abattoirs away from our view and packaged for the supermarket and so do not even look like animals anymore and we can remove ourselves from the brutality of it, and push back our cognitive dissonance.

Is it just too much a part of our every day lives and too normalised to retract it without science intervening (e.g. lab made meat)? Have our civilisation and ability to reflect become totally at odds with our instinctive and biological needs? Should we see our moral discomfort as a by-product of our intelligence and reflectiveness, and not something to pay too much attention to. Isn't there a theory that the practise of cooking our meat was a huge step in our evolutionary development towards becoming intelligent, self-aware, social beings, and if we were herbivores we never would have developed this far (cooking meat made us intelligent, now we are intelligent we are not sure we should consume meat)...Or is our sense of morality the most defining part of our idea of being human and humane...and therefore should never be ignored and rationalised away?
0
denteddental
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Just eat the damn chicken nuggets.
12
ashaxo99
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
people are normalised into eating meat depending on the society and culture they are born into. if everybody around them is consuming meat, even if they may acknowledge the practise to be wrong, it is hard for them to refrain seeing as they have been socialised that way, hence why the cycle of eating meat continues.

within my family's culture, although i was born in the UK, it is not acceptable or even normal to eat meat, therefore i have never tried it. the thought of eating meat hence seems quite peculiar and immoral to me, simply because this is entirely against the norm i've experienced during my upbringing. however a lot of my friends who eat meat can acknowledge the harsh conditions the animals are brought up in, (although this is also the same for vegetarian products such as milk, i must say) but find it difficult to stop eating it when they are surrounded by it everyday, and also because they do quite enjoy the taste.
1
Lapis.Lazuli
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
If you can't build a house do you deserve to live in it? Follows the same logic.
The whole point of living in a society is to contribute to it as well as reap the rewards (e.g. not having to hunt for food).
3
(づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
I would happily kill an animal for food so meh.

Should we also forbid people from eating veg if they didn't harvest it themselves?
2
Anonymous #1
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by (づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ)
I would happily kill an animal for food so meh.

Should we also forbid people from eating veg if they didn't harvest it themselves?
1. Imagine a living breathing animal pulsating and writhing in your grasp...you would feel fine to break it's neck/chop it's head off/smash it's head with a rock, and feel it's blood pour down your hands seeing it twitching and hearing it make tortued, pained sounds as the last bit of life drains out? I am not saying I don't believe someone could do that, but I am wondering if you have really thought about what it would be like to kill animal. If you have, and the answer is still yes, then alright then. Also, actually doing it rather than just thinking about it, could be quite different.

2. You could also say, should we forbid people from living in houses they did not build, or from wearing shoes they did not make, or reading a book they did not write?? I am not saying people should only partake in things they have participated in the making or proliferation of, but that this is a question of morality for a lot of people. It's not about did they do it themselves, but could they, morally speaking, do it.
0
Flocoa
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Sounds like an EPQ question to me.
0
username2896864
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Lapis.Lazuli)
If you can't build a house do you deserve to live in it? Follows the same logic.
The whole point of living in a society is to contribute to it as well as reap the rewards (e.g. not having to hunt for food).
(Original post by Flocoa)
Sounds like an EPQ question to me.
These. ^ :congrats::rofl:
0
(づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Anonymous)
X.
I get what killing an animal would be like, and I'd still be more than happy to kill one if it meant food on the table for me and my family. :dontknow:
0
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
This is a moral can you not a are you physically capable or skilled to do it.

Hence the building a house example is not accurate.
0
Anonymous #1
#11
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Lapis.Lazuli)
If you can't build a house do you deserve to live in it? Follows the same logic.
The whole point of living in a society is to contribute to it as well as reap the rewards (e.g. not having to hunt for food).
No, it doesn't follow the same logic. Not being able to build a house is about not having the knowledge, skills, money, materials to do it. If you had said - "the materials used to make modern houses are grown, sourced, manufactured, and bought in enviornmentally and socially unethical ways that you probably wouldn't carry out yourself, and if so isn't immoral to be living in something you would never have been able tobuild yourself, because of the moral conlict involved " ...then maybe that would be equatable to my question. I am talking about the moral ability to do something - whether it would lie too heaviily on your conscience to be able to do it yourself, not about whether you're physically, financially, intellectually etc. able to do it.

Yes we reap the rewards of working together in a society. But I'm asking if you weren't morally able to carry out an action, should you be reaping the rewards from others doing it for you.
0
Lapis.Lazuli
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Anonymous)
No, it doesn't follow the same logic. Not being able to build a house is about not having the knowledge, skills, money, materials to do it. If you had said - "the materials used to make modern houses are grown, sourced, manufactured, and bought in enviornmentally and socially unethical ways that you probably wouldn't carry out yourself, and if so isn't immoral to be living in something you would never have been able tobuild yourself, because of the moral conlict involved " ...then maybe that would be equatable to my question. I am talking about the moral ability to do something - whether it would lie too heaviily on your conscience to be able to do it yourself, not about whether you're physically, financially, intellectually etc. able to do it.

Yes we reap the rewards of working together in a society. But I'm asking if you weren't morally able to carry out an action, should you be reaping the rewards from others doing it for you.
Since you want to focus on morality, a better question would be:
Should people praise war veterans or do they deserve to live in a free country if they have not fought themselves as war is fundamentally immoral. Most would argue this carries more weight than a question of morals regarding animals.

In either case, ability does not correlate to morality so tying one to the other is a personal choice. Something can be considered to be a necessary evil.
You're also saying that the ability to reflect is a token of intelligence. If animals are inferior to humans in both aspects then is it still immoral? In my opinion, if the understanding of a situation is so skewed, the same morals do not apply.
And your point of imagining a living, breathing animal pulsating and writhing in your grasp acts as an appeal to emotion which is a logical fallacy.
Exposure to emotive and persuasive language will only convince those who are ignorant of the process. Most likely, this is a minority.
0
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
If you dont accept child labour and would not be willing yourself to have a factory with children being employed should you then use any device that uses parts made by child labour?
0
moonkatt
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
Wtf does this have to do with relationships?
2
Kravence
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
Morals are completely subjective so this is a flawed argument which really holds no point.
You can say it's morally wrong and I can disagree which would me to continue eating meat.
0
sparkling dildo
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
You don't think about that when your at KFC
0
Anonymous #1
#17
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Lapis.Lazuli)
Since you want to focus on morality, a better question would be:
Should people praise war veterans or do they deserve to live in a free country if they have not fought themselves as war is fundamentally immoral. Most would argue this carries more weight than a question of morals regarding animals.

In either case, ability does not correlate to morality so tying one to the other is a personal choice. Something can be considered to be a necessary evil.
You're also saying that the ability to reflect is a token of intelligence. If animals are inferior to humans in both aspects then is it still immoral? In my opinion, if the understanding of a situation is so skewed, the same morals do not apply.
And your point of imagining a living, breathing animal pulsating and writhing in your grasp acts as an appeal to emotion which is a logical fallacy.
Exposure to emotive and persuasive language will only convince those who are ignorant of the process. Most likely, this is a minority.
I want to focus on the morality of eating meat, so it does not make it a better question to bring another subject into that...war or otherwise. I am not writing an essay, or epq or something, I am just wondering about this specific subject.

You say something about animals being inferior to us, so is it immoral... Well that depends on how you are measuring inferiority and superiority, and if you really think it is possible to measure that, and if that's actually a factor over whether we can kill something (some may say our superiority is why we should care for animals, others may say we aren't superior as we do things like murder, rape etc. and animals don't). But even if I rationally believed a sheep to be inferior to me it still doesn't mean I can make my conscience not care about killing it. Rationality doesn't govern everything for a person whether he/she likes it or not.

My description about a living breathing animal pulsating etc. was not to cast a moral judgement on the poster, but to make a vivid description to help him understand a bit more what it would really feel like. And if you read further, you would see I said, "if it's still yes after really thinking about how it would feel, then ok then," as I was only inquiring as to whether he really meant it, and not trying to pass judgement or appeal to emotions. Why should I anyway? I am not a vegetarian and so I have been accepting the slaughtering of animals all my life.

I agree that living in a country that is defended by the military - an authority many people have a lot of moral conflicts with, is another important moral question. And that brings up the question of the social utlity of the psychopath - we ourselves couldn't morally carry out the killing of another person, drop bombs etc., but we are benefitting from people who can.
0
PossiblyNotGod
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Most people wouldn't kill an animal... unless they were forced to go on a no meat diet for awhile,then mofos will be eating from live pigs/cows before they've even bled out.
0
jackbus
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
So since you are against killing animals for meat does that mean you don't wear any leather products as those animals have been killed for clothing not meat?
0
Anonymous #1
#20
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by jackbus)
So since you are against killing animals for meat does that mean you don't wear any leather products as those animals have been killed for clothing not meat?
I am not a vegetarian and am not *against* the killing of animals for meat, I unsure about it and would like a better perspective on how I think about it.

I thought leather came from the skin of animals that have been killed for their meat, so it is like a by-product, but maybe that's not the case? I'm sure all these industries have nasty secrets. I am told leather is good for shoes as it is natural and your skin can breathe better, but perhaps that is just mum talk and there are better materials now. But fur is another matter as they are killed for that and it's a *luxury* so to speak - it's not a healthier material to be on your skin, it's just about flaunting wealth and a decadent taste. In siberia for example though, it may be necessary to wear animal fur as the weather is so cold would be putting yourself at risk if you didn't wear it -so it's got a meaningful use.

I don't tend to wear leather myself as I find it off-putting but am not against it, in actual fact if you are gonig to kill the animal for meat then I think it's making good use of the rest of the animal to use their skin as leather so as not to waste it.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (4)
21.05%
The paper was reasonable (7)
36.84%
Not feeling great about that exam... (7)
36.84%
It was TERRIBLE (1)
5.26%

Watched Threads

View All