User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-02-21 at 11:01 PM UTCFor most people living in the first world, there is no good, rational defense to continue supporting the holocaust of animals. Discuss.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-02-21 at 11:09 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-02-21 at 11:11 PM UTCWhy can't I just eat animals because they taste good? Or because I want to?
And why do I need a "good rational defense", or even any defense at all? Shouldn't you first explain the moral obligation that I'm supposed to be refusing to accept? -
2018-02-21 at 11:13 PM UTCI was a vegetarian but I wrecked my bike and they want me to get a large amount of protein and calcium so my collarbone and shoulder blade will heal
Maybe I should just drink a lot of beer insteadThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-21 at 11:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS It tastes good and it's easy to get. Good and rational explanation right there.
Taste is not a very good point upon which to mount a defense for the practice of murdering millions of helpless animals every year, but ease of access is a real concern. The first world can, in my belief, afford to move to a completely vegetarian diet. Economically, this would be difficult to stomach but it would be possible. But in shitty countries where there is a scarcity of food (not just meat) and animal products are the most nutritious available options, it would help for Western governments to invest in them agriculturally. Animal well-being isn't the only reason we should do this; Americans in particular enjoy a very good lifestyle on the whole, and it's about time they gave a slice of that to the people struggling to swallow their cakes of dirt. There's absolutely no reason children should be starving over eggs in India when they could be given enriched rice or soy or some other easily cultivated plant-based protein source.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-21 at 11:20 PM UTC
-
2018-02-21 at 11:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Why can't I just eat animals because they taste good? Or because I want to?
And why do I need a "good rational defense", or even any defense at all? Shouldn't you first explain the moral obligation that I'm supposed to be refusing to accept?
You're free to do so, but if you accept the basic proposition that physically harming another living thing is wrong, for example, the mass slaughter which happens in animal-based agriculture on a regular basis, then you should commit yourself to inflicting less of it on them, where the matter is in your control. That means picking the vegetarian option at restaurants, switching from bacon to oatmeal, etc. The small changes we all make add up.
You need a good, rational defense for your choices because this is a discussion forum and you've entered a thread with the intention of arguing about ethics.
Originally posted by Juicebox I was a vegetarian but I wrecked my bike and they want me to get a large amount of protein and calcium so my collarbone and shoulder blade will heal
Maybe I should just drink a lot of beer instead
You live in the first world; there is absolutely no reason you couldn't have gotten that protein and calcium from enriched dairy or soy products. Shit, you could've mixed beans and rice. You ate meat because you're a bitch. -
2018-02-21 at 11:23 PM UTC
-
2018-02-21 at 11:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick You live in the first world; there is absolutely no reason you couldn't have gotten that protein and calcium from enriched dairy or soy products. Shit, you could've mixed beans and rice. You ate meat because you're a bitch.
Dairy is worse for the animals than meat, and I'm not turning myself into a MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING
The accident was Sunday, I haven't eaten anything since then -
2018-02-21 at 11:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Juicebox Dairy is worse for the animals than meat, and I'm not turning myself into a MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING
The accident was Sunday, I haven't eaten anything since then
I hope you're taking care of yourself. But I think you should reconsider - your recovery doesn't have to cost anything its life. -
2018-02-21 at 11:30 PM UTC
-
2018-02-21 at 11:35 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-02-21 at 11:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Number13 I might've been on board but you calling it a holocaust means I have to support it
I think it's an accurate description. One obvious difference is that our factories of death provide us with meat, instead of ashes and corpses, but it's still the same process: a refining of the instruments that kill, with the goal of an increased output of death. -
2018-02-21 at 11:44 PM UTCBut seriously though we're the apex predator of this world, solar system and possibly the galaxy and universe, we earned the right to this by being superior, it's a lion hunting antelope only industrialized but that said meat you hunt and kill yourself is always better imo.
-
2018-02-21 at 11:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Number13 But seriously though we're the apex predator of this world, solar system and possibly the galaxy and universe, we earned the right to this by being superior, it's a lion hunting antelope only industrialized but that said meat you hunt and kill yourself is always better imo.
So if you're walking down the street and some super jacked muslim dude comes out and beats you up then beheads you, did he then earn his right to kill you? -
2018-02-21 at 11:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by Number13 But seriously though we're the apex predator of this world, solar system and possibly the galaxy and universe, we earned the right to this by being superior, it's a lion hunting antelope only industrialized but that said meat you hunt and kill yourself is always better imo.
We've earned the right to nothing. Unless you naïvely cling to a biblically established hierarchy of being, there is nothing to support the notion of our providence over the other inhabitants of our environment. If being good at killing is a condition which requires us to do so, I'd argue that we're actually far better at reasoning than we are at murder--therefore obligating us to use our reasoning, which should inform us to stop killing. Might does not make right, but in our case it does afford us the opportunity to examine critically our presuppositions about the well-being of other species who don't have that luxury.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-21 at 11:53 PM UTC
-
2018-02-21 at 11:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Number13 Not exactly the direction I was going with this unless you also mean he then eats me.
The point remains: if you can justify our eating of animals because we have evolved to dominate them, then you shouldn't have a problem with members of other groups who believe they are entitled to dominate you by virtue of their physical superiority. -
2018-02-22 at 12:06 AM UTCSorry Zanick, I feel absolutely no moral obligation to not consume sentient animals. I don't think "morality" is any sort of argument anyway, especially on an individual level where people like me literally struggle to feel any sort of "empathy" (even though I rationally understand what you're talking about). "Might does not make right" is not an argument, especially since consuming higher amounts of protein contributed to the growth of our prefrontal cortex (which is responsible for your linguistic abilities which attempt to oppose the killing and eating of animals). If your ancestors only ate plants and nuts you would not be able to make this thread. Of course, this is a "natural fallacy" (since "natural" does not mean "right") but I am a member of a species in an ecosystem which sustains (and has sustained) itself by eating animals. I agree that modern farming where chickens and cows are kept in fucked up conditions is pretty abhorrent, but this is an entirely separate issue to eating animals. Can you please explain to me why killing and eating animals, whose genes have contributed to their tasty propensity, is objectively wrong and not merely something that makes you feel uncomfortableThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-02-22 at 12:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by Daily Sorry Zanick, I feel absolutely no moral obligation to not consume sentient animals. I don't think "morality" is any sort of argument anyway, especially on an individual level where people like me literally struggle to feel any sort of "empathy" (even though I rationally understand what you're talking about). "Might does not make right" is not an argument, especially since consuming higher amounts of protein contributed to the growth of our prefrontal cortex (which is responsible for your linguistic abilities which attempt to oppose the killing and eating of animals). If your ancestors only ate plants and nuts you would not be able to make this thread. Of course, this is a "natural fallacy" (since "natural" does not mean "right") but I am a member of a species in an ecosystem which sustains (and has sustained) itself by eating animals. I agree that modern farming where chickens and cows are kept in fucked up conditions is pretty abhorrent, but this is an entirely separate issue to eating animals. Can you please explain to me why killing and eating animals, whose genes have contributed to their tasty propensity, is objectively wrong and not merely something that makes you feel uncomfortable
We don't structure our diets based on what spear-chuckers were wrangling 6,000 years ago. We have purchasing power in an agrarian society, so we enjoy the luxury of thinking about what we eat. We need to consider the action of eating meat from the perspective of what is possible and correct, here and now, rather than from the perspectives of what was favorable for our ancestors. Today we have the option to replace our intake of animal products with responsible, healthier alternatives; this is something relatively recent and it should be seized upon for the welfare of everybody. We don't need to consume meat anymore to achieve maximal cognitive functioning.
Yes, the animals would be saved, but there are also advantages for us in adopting a vegetarian diet. The health benefits speak for themselves, and it would also lessen the impact of the agriculture industry on the environment. If you aren't swayed by the morality of the issue, perhaps these benefits are meaningful to you.
