Is it morally wrong to eat meat? Watch

This discussion is closed.
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#181
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#181
(Original post by Tednol)
I'd love to know which morals you have lead you to believe that eating meat is morally wrong. Perhaps they are morals which go something along the line of "animals are beautiful living creatures, we shouldn't kill them to eat". In which case... surely it is just a immoral to eat vegitables, nuts, fruit etc. They were all once living; they all move, respire, sense, grow, reproduce, excrete and require nutrition after all.

Quite frankly, I don't believe morals come into this debate. Asking whether it is 'moral' to eat meat is like asking if it's 'moral' to wear jeans on a Tuesday. There is no objective source of morals.
I have refrained from posting on this thread as most of it has been repetition or pointless debate about the healthiness of eating meat, but seeing as I have been addressed I shall respond.

If you had bothered to read my other posts you might have got your answer.

Saying that the same logic implies we shouldn't eat vegetables is rubbish. Vegetarians don't not eat meat because, for example "it is a living thing". Firstly, anyone with an ounce of sense would know that many plants, especially those with fruit, rely on being eaten to reproduce. Ever wondered why they have pips/ seeds in? So birds will carry them and excrete them elsewhere. Plants have no brain and no pain receptors- any scientist would call you absurd to suggest they are in anyway conscious. Which leads me to...

My defiance to anyone who says animals are not conscious. Sure, they may not be self-conscious, but they certainly have awareness, for example they feel pain. Can you dispute this? The only response I can think of is to suggest animals are merely automatons, who act in the same way as a computer would. But then, you could say the same thing about humans. How do you know everyone else aren't just highly developed AI? There is no argument here.

Everyone also seems to ignore my mental-patient argument; if we are to eat animals, what is to stop us eating humans born with mental problems rendering them vegetative? If they "deserve" to live, maybe animals do too. I think that even if my argument is "wrong", you must admit it is reasonable for me to make it, and that what I say constitutes a moral account.
0
curryADD
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#182
Report 13 years ago
#182
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
I have refrained from posting on this thread as most of it has been repetition or pointless debate about the healthiness of eating meat, but seeing as I have been addressed I shall respond.

If you had bothered to read my other posts you might have got your answer.

Saying that the same logic implies we shouldn't eat vegetables is rubbish. Vegetarians don't not eat meat because, for example "it is a living thing". Firstly, anyone with an ounce of sense would know that many plants, especially those with fruit, rely on being eaten to reproduce. Ever wondered why they have pips/ seeds in? So birds will carry them and excrete them elsewhere. Plants have no brain and no pain receptors- any scientist would call you absurd to suggest they are in anyway conscious. Which leads me to...

My defiance to anyone who says animals are not conscious. Sure, they may not be self-conscious, but they certainly have awareness, for example they feel pain. Can you dispute this? The only response I can think of is to suggest animals are merely automatons, who act in the same way as a computer would. But then, you could say the same thing about humans. How do you know everyone else aren't just highly developed AI? There is no argument here.

Everyone also seems to ignore my mental-patient argument; if we are to eat animals, what is to stop us eating humans born with mental problems rendering them vegetative? If they "deserve" to live, maybe animals do too. I think that even if my argument is "wrong", you must admit it is reasonable for me to make it, and that what I say constitutes a moral account.

BRAVO! :tsr:
0
moon_flower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#183
Report 13 years ago
#183
(Original post by curryADD)
get a life. the europeans shouuld not have been there in the first place.

and if you really don't care why we don't eat meat, then why are you on this thread?

and yes, plants are living, but I cannot physically survive without plants, but I can physically survive without meat.
1. just because i think up things faster doesnt' mean i don't have a life but any way...wether or not they should have been there doesn't matter...they were and the africans weren't really prepared to deal with pale skinned people with guns

2. i'm here to say it's up to the person to decide wether it's 'moral' to not eat meat or not, because eventually it boils down to perception not real
application. if you really tried to apply morals to food you'd have to starve.

3. not true, as someone kindly pointed out

"Saying that the same logic implies we shouldn't eat vegetables is rubbish. Vegetarians don't not eat meat because, for example "it is a living thing". Firstly, anyone with an ounce of sense would know that many plants, especially those with fruit, rely on being eaten to reproduce. Ever wondered why they have pips/ seeds in? So birds will carry them and excrete them elsewhere. Plants have no brain and no pain receptors- any scientist would call you absurd to suggest they are in anyway conscious. Which leads me to...

My defiance to anyone who says animals are not conscious. Sure, they may not be self-conscious, but they certainly have awareness, for example they feel pain. Can you dispute this? The only response I can think of is to suggest animals are merely automatons, who act in the same way as a computer would. But then, you could say the same thing about humans. How do you know everyone else aren't just highly developed AI? There is no argument here."

Maybe you should consider applying sense 100%.

Oh kindly tell me of the millions of plants that have been born due to YOUR comsumption of plants...your poop goes down the sewer.

be reasonable...what kinds of animals are normally eaten by humans? cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens and every now and then some wild animal. how long do you think a cow is going to survive in the wild? the wolves would have a feast, the cows would become some endangered.

basically most of the animals eaten by humans are surviving in their numbers because of humans. they are created to be eaten, just like plants. if you expect humanity to stop the consumption of meat you must expect it to destroy what it has kept alive.

just because animals have some sense (were not even sure if they have a real perception of it) of pain while plants lack receptors for sense isn't a reason to eat them instead. they are still alive, and killing them robs them of their life.

"Everyone also seems to ignore my mental-patient argument; if we are to eat animals, what is to stop us eating humans born with mental problems rendering them vegetative? If they "deserve" to live, maybe animals do too. I think that even if my argument is "wrong", you must admit it is reasonable for me to make it, and that what I say constitutes a moral account."

if we eat plants what's stopping us from eating a human without a functioning brain? the vegetative one who needs the heart started by a machine the one who needs to be forced to breath, what keeps us from eating them if we eat plants? why do you need to deserve to live? why can't a plant just live? why should a human decide if it dies? why does it need a brain to be considered deserving of life? it is alive, wether or not it deserves it and at that point you should not be able to eat it.

in that theory you can't eat at all. the theory that plants don't have feelings, is just as shallow as they aren't made up of the 'meat' substance. the bigger picture is that you are consuming life and deciding to hurt on you think can't feel is just as discriminatory. plants are considered 'lesser life', when life is just life, it has no degrees. then there's the theory that says you can eat what you create/keeping in existence only if you have the intention of eating it. but this theory runs into a problem with cannibalism and other more vulgar aspects of humanity. so in the end the most 'moral' thing to do is not to eat at all, which sucks and that's why morality can't be applied logically to eating
0
Tednol
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#184
Report 13 years ago
#184
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
I have refrained from posting on this thread as most of it has been repetition or pointless debate about the healthiness of eating meat, but seeing as I have been addressed I shall respond.

If you had bothered to read my other posts you might have got your answer.

Saying that the same logic implies we shouldn't eat vegetables is rubbish. Vegetarians don't not eat meat because, for example "it is a living thing". Firstly, anyone with an ounce of sense would know that many plants, especially those with fruit, rely on being eaten to reproduce. Ever wondered why they have pips/ seeds in? So birds will carry them and excrete them elsewhere. Plants have no brain and no pain receptors- any scientist would call you absurd to suggest they are in anyway conscious. Which leads me to...

My defiance to anyone who says animals are not conscious. Sure, they may not be self-conscious, but they certainly have awareness, for example they feel pain. Can you dispute this? The only response I can think of is to suggest animals are merely automatons, who act in the same way as a computer would. But then, you could say the same thing about humans. How do you know everyone else aren't just highly developed AI? There is no argument here.

Everyone also seems to ignore my mental-patient argument; if we are to eat animals, what is to stop us eating humans born with mental problems rendering them vegetative? If they "deserve" to live, maybe animals do too. I think that even if my argument is "wrong", you must admit it is reasonable for me to make it, and that what I say constitutes a moral account.
You failed to answer my main point in your vindictive response buddy. What 'morals' of yours tell you eating meat is bad, and where do you get these 'morals' from? If you admit your morals and nothing more than personal preference (I believe morals are nothing more than personal preferences), then fair enough we can just agree to disagree. I just get slightly... irritated when people suggest my actions are immoral when quite clearly morals do not come into it.
0
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#185
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#185
(Original post by Tednol)
You failed to answer my main point in your vindictive response buddy. What 'morals' of yours tell you eating meat is bad, and where do you get these 'morals' from? If you admit your morals and nothing more than personal preference (I believe morals are nothing more than personal preferences), then fair enough we can just agree to disagree. I just get slightly... irritated when people suggest my actions are immoral when quite clearly morals do not come into it.
Do you really want me to regurgitate everything I have already said in this thread? Its all there and if you have any problems with what I've said or any questions feel free to bring them up. Also it is a very bold statement to say morals do not come into something. Some philosophers would go as far as to say that morals come into everything. I however, believe there is not simply "right" and "wrong", instead I believe there are various degrees of morality. Do you have the impression that I'm trying to say "all meat eaters are evil scum and will go to hell"? If forced into a corner I would argue that eating meat is "morally dubious". What I mean by this is that it is questionable to discriminate against animals, for we see it as wrong to eat other humans, simply on the grounds that they do not exhibit the same degree of intelligence in their behaviour. The reason I personally refrain from eating meat is because I do not need to (as I have explained several times), thus avoiding the dilemma. I do recognise however that some of my own arguments might make eating dairy products/ eggs dubious, but there is a lot less debate about the healthiness of veganism- it is far harder to sustain a healthy diet. Hence, I do not technically condemn the eating of meat, more I ask why animals must die needlessly at our hands.

To answer your question "where do morals come from" is a bigger debate in itself. Maybe you should make a new thread about it. I would dispute that it is "personal preference" on the grounds that I might have preferences such as having a slave, or killing people who annoy me. If you ask a religious person they will tell you their morals come from God, but I see it as far more social. My reasoning goes along the lines of looking at our society's moral values and questioning the logic of other ethics - do they contradict for example? Like I said that is a huge question and it deserves a lot more consideration than can be afforded here.
0
Tednol
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#186
Report 13 years ago
#186
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
Do you really want me to regurgitate everything I have already said in this thread? Its all there and if you have any problems with what I've said or any questions feel free to bring them up. Also it is a very bold statement to say morals do not come into something. Some philosophers would go as far as to say that morals come into everything. I however, believe there is not simply "right" and "wrong", instead I believe there are various degrees of morality. Do you have the impression that I'm trying to say "all meat eaters are evil scum and will go to hell"? If forced into a corner I would argue that eating meat is "morally dubious". What I mean by this is that it is questionable to discriminate against animals, for we see it as wrong to eat other humans, simply on the grounds that they do not exhibit the same degree of intelligence in their behaviour. The reason I personally refrain from eating meat is because I do not need to (as I have explained several times), thus avoiding the dilemma. I do recognise however that some of my own arguments might make eating dairy products/ eggs dubious, but there is a lot less debate about the healthiness of veganism- it is far harder to sustain a healthy diet. Hence, I do not technically condemn the eating of meat, more I ask why animals must die needlessly at our hands.

To answer your question "where do morals come from" is a bigger debate in itself. Maybe you should make a new thread about it. I would dispute that it is "personal preference" on the grounds that I might have preferences such as having a slave, or killing people who annoy me. If you ask a religious person they will tell you their morals come from God, but I see it as far more social. My reasoning goes along the lines of looking at our society's moral values and questioning the logic of other ethics - do they contradict for example? Like I said that is a huge question and it deserves a lot more consideration than can be afforded here.
I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one. It would be a pretty boring world if we all agreed after all!

Regards my thoughts on morals and ethics, I have taken part in some epic threads on UKL on the subject of ethics and alike. I couldn't find them after a quick search, so if anyone can find my thread from years ago titled something along the lines of 'Was Hilter Morally Wrong?" I'd be grateful. Suffice to say, I've had plenty to say on the topic and I have neither the time nor the desire to re-write my thoughts here and now.

Ultimately, in my mind the only thing that is 'right' is being true to yourself so long as you do not impose on other peoples' liberties. To that end, I'll carry on eating meat and you can carry on not eating meat, and we can all be happy.

Cheers,
Ed
0
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#187
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#187
(Original post by Tednol)
I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one. It would be a pretty boring world if we all agreed after all!

Regards my thoughts on morals and ethics, I have taken part in some epic threads on UKL on the subject of ethics and alike. I couldn't find them after a quick search, so if anyone can find my thread from years ago titled something along the lines of 'Was Hilter Morally Wrong?" I'd be grateful. Suffice to say, I've had plenty to say on the topic and I have neither the time nor the desire to re-write my thoughts here and now.

Ultimately, in my mind the only thing that is 'right' is being true to yourself so long as you do not impose on other peoples' liberties. To that end, I'll carry on eating meat and you can carry on not eating meat, and we can all be happy.

Cheers,
Ed
Sounds good to me. Also I'll have a search myself sometime, though I'm the type to ressurect dead threads, obviously.

Bob
0
mvmv
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#188
Report 13 years ago
#188
boooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrii iiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggg
0
Pedant
Badges: 0
#189
Report 13 years ago
#189
I have refrained from posting on this thread as most of it has been repetition or pointless debate about the healthiness of eating meat, but seeing as I have been addressed I shall respond.

If you had bothered to read my other posts you might have got your answer.

Saying that the same logic implies we shouldn't eat vegetables is rubbish. Vegetarians don't not eat meat because, for example "it is a living thing". Firstly, anyone with an ounce of sense would know that many plants, especially those with fruit, rely on being eaten to reproduce. Ever wondered why they have pips/ seeds in? So birds will carry them and excrete them elsewhere. Plants have no brain and no pain receptors- any scientist would call you absurd to suggest they are in anyway conscious. Which leads me to...

My defiance to anyone who says animals are not conscious. Sure, they may not be self-conscious, but they certainly have awareness, for example they feel pain. Can you dispute this?
Well plants have feelings to. Why dont you try living on fruits only. Any plant would kill you for talking nonsese .Plants not only have feelings, they have more powers like telepathy.
see the site http://www.inq7.net/lif/2003/jun/24/lif_22-1.htm
Because plants do not seem to have nervous systems and cannot run away from predators, you assumed that they do not experience pain and suffering.

Between 1960 and 1970, Burdon-Sanderson conducted many experiments on the Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula). The first experiment, and possibly the most remarkably revealing of all, was to attach electrodes to the surface of the trap lobes in the hope of recording electrical activity. He found that each time a trigger hair was touched it fired off a wave of electrical activity almost identical to the nerve impulses, or action potentials, produced by animal neurons. This experiment was carried out on the Sundew and Sensitive plant - with similar conclusions!

From the website i quote
Plant identifies killer

In another fascinating and rather incredible experiment, Backster was able to identify a plant killer through his polygraph machine. The plants pointed to the real killer by reacting wildly to him.

Here is how Whitman described that classic experiment in the book mentioned earlier: "One of six students was chosen to kill a plant in a room with only one plant present. Neither Backster nor the five other students knew who the killer would be. The chosen student sneaked into the room with two plants and destroyed one of them. Backster later asked the students to come into the room one at a time.

"Each of the innocent students came into the room and the plant showed no reaction to any of them. But when the guilty student came into the room, the plant seemed to go into a frenzy which showed up as wild activity on the polygraph tracings."

Other experiments conducted by different researchers showed that plants responded positively to classical music and very badly to rock or heavy metal music.
City dwellers have not given much importance to plants. Maybe it's because they are not aware of their importance and sensitivity. As the above scientific experiments have shown, plants and trees have emotions and even psychic powers

Touch sensitive movement is known to occur in over 1,000 different species of plants. Other common ones are the tendrils of peas, which curl towards a 'touch', and of course the twining stems of beans.


Plants also use their sense of touch for sex: As the growing pollen tube penetrates the female's style en route to her eggs, it "feels" its way along the ridges on the inside of the style. Using pollen tubes grown in dishes, Tokufumi Hirouchi and Shozo Suda, of Kobe University in Japan, showed that pollen grows along tiny ridges etched into the glass dishes. Similar sized ridges exist in the female style."

There is no such thing as cruelty-free food! To raise vegetables, you have to kill animals--"pests" who would otherwise eat up your crops, like rodents and insects. What's the difference between directly killing animals for food and killing them to protect crops and grains?
Do a bit more of a research and you will find many other experiments and reports. Creulty-free food, let me advice, hmmm dont eat. Just kidding :hello:
0
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#190
Report 13 years ago
#190
Rocks don't have feelings. Let's all live on salt.
0
Diamontrina
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#191
Report 13 years ago
#191
Im a veggie. Havent eaten meat for years. But I do not have a problem with meat eating, just the conditions these animals are brought up and slaughtered.
0
heminder
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#192
Report 13 years ago
#192
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
I have been a vegetarian for many years, as my parents decided to be vegetarians before I was born. Obviously all my meals at home were veggie, so I became accustomed to the diet. As soon as I started going to friends' houses, I started to taste meat, being curious little me. My discovery was a big "meh". I lived without it that long, and it was nothing special. Why start eating meat when I am perfectly happy and healthy being a veggie? And so it remained.

Recently however, I started to think about the moral debate of whether it is right or wrong to eat animals. And you know what, I couldn't find one convincing argument in favour of it being morally right. In my opinion, there is no moral justification for eating meat in a world (well at least in the civilised world) which no longer requires us to kill and eat animals to live.

Discuss.
to eat veggies requires you to kill plants...
to eat meat requires you to kill animals...
both plants and animals are living...
i don't see any reason to not kill and eat one from the other...
0
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#193
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#193
(Original post by heminder)
to eat veggies requires you to kill plants...
to eat meat requires you to kill animals...
both plants and animals are living...
i don't see any reason to not kill and eat one from the other...
We are animals. Do you consider yourself a 'thing', in the usual sense not the philosophical sense? Animals are not 'things' any more than we are. Plants however have no degree of consciousness... unless you can prove otherwise? I've already been through this.
0
Pedant
Badges: 0
#194
Report 13 years ago
#194
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
We are animals. Do you consider yourself a 'thing', in the usual sense not the philosophical sense? Animals are not 'things' any more than we are. Plants however have no degree of consciousness... unless you can prove otherwise? I've already been through this.
check out post 189, does that prove anything
0
parsimony
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#195
Report 13 years ago
#195
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
Recently however, I started to think about the moral debate of whether it is right or wrong to eat animals. And you know what, I couldn't find one convincing argument in favour of it being morally right. In my opinion, there is no moral justification for eating meat in a world (well at least in the civilised world) which no longer requires us to kill and eat animals to live.
hm for sure it is not moraly good to lock up animals into small boxes.. but if its moraly good to eat meat? actually many ppl need mean for their body development and that stuff..

its hard to answer the question whether or not it is right to eat meat but I am sure it IS wrong to treat animals soo cruelly!! :evil:
0
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#196
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#196
(Original post by Pedant)
check out post 189, does that prove anything
As interesting as it may be my friend, it doesn't say anything new, and a lot of it is very questionable. To me "feeling" means more than electrical signals. Otherwise you could make a small machine and say it feels, because electrical signals are sent when a switch is pressed, etc. Would you not expect such signals in a venus fly trap? There must be some observable change when a fly lands on it, and it clamps shut. Its just a mechanism. There is no reason to say it suggests consciousness.
0
AllergicToFairydust
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#197
Report 13 years ago
#197
I met a girl today (about 5/6) whose dad was carrying 4 drinks, 2 hotdogs, popcorn and his tickets were in his butt pocket so he put two drinks down, I grabbed the hotdogs and asked the little girl to hold on to the carton holding one of the hotdogs...she refused.

The dad went on to explain that her mum had made her a veggie and the girl would refuse to hold thing containing meat!
0
Trousers
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#198
Report 13 years ago
#198
(Original post by parsimony)
hm for sure it is not moraly good to lock up animals into small boxes.. but if its moraly good to eat meat? actually many ppl need mean for their body development and that stuff..

its hard to answer the question whether or not it is right to eat meat but I am sure it IS wrong to treat animals soo cruelly!! :evil:
But if you think that treating animals badly is morally wrong, how can killing them not be an extension of this poor treatment? Would you say that keeping a child in a box was wrong, but killing him was okay?

You're right though - it is a difficult issue.
0
parsimony
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#199
Report 13 years ago
#199
(Original post by Trousers)
But if you think that treating animals badly is morally wrong, how can killing them not be an extension of this poor treatment? Would you say that keeping a child in a box was wrong, but killing him was okay?

You're right though - it is a difficult issue.
well you know these days there are these free-range animals that do not live under such bad conditions i believe..
i believe that we are also only animals so it would be pretty hard to stop us (humans) from killing other animals (non-human animals) ..since we are omnivores..

BUT it think it would be much better if we would kill only a certain amount animals that we can also consume..
like these indians..when they kill an animal they use each part of it so nothing remains as waste..

for me personally its even hard to kill a fly (i just don't feel like it) but i have to look at this situation from a broader perspective..
0
Trousers
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#200
Report 13 years ago
#200
(Original post by parsimony)
well you know these days there are these free-range animals that do not live under such bad conditions i believe..
i believe that we are also only animals so it would be pretty hard to stop us (humans) from killing other animals (non-human animals) ..since we are omnivores..

BUT it think it would be much better if we would kill only a certain amount animals that we can also consume..
like these indians..when they kill an animal they use each part of it so nothing remains as waste..

for me personally its even hard to kill a fly (i just don't feel like it) but i have to look at this situation from a broader perspective..
True, it would be impossible and possibly immoral to force vegetarianism upon the whole planet, or even one person. But just because the whole of humankind isn't going to follow in your footsteps, is that a reason not to do it yourself?
0
X
new posts
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

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (267)
79.94%
Leave (67)
20.06%

Watched Threads

View All