User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-02-22 at 12:29 AM UTCOkay, can you please explain to me why us killing and eating animals is wrong while cheetahs and panthers and tigers and wolves killing and eating animals is not an issue to you (who are all part of our global ecosystem)
-
2018-02-22 at 12:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick 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.
I do try not to hurt other creatures unless they hurt me, but at the same time I really like eating meat and don't think there is a good reason to stop. Some animals might be harmed in the process but I suppose that doesn't really bother me. -
2018-02-22 at 12:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Daily Okay, can you please explain to me why us killing and eating animals is wrong while cheetahs and panthers and tigers and wolves killing and eating animals is not an issue to you (who are all part of our global ecosystem)
Cheetahs and panthers and tigers and wolves don't have the capacity for moral decisionmaking. If you tried to teach them about utilitarian ethics and how they can be applied to the animals they kill and eat, they would probably kill and eat you. Humans have ethical reasoning, and most of us embrace some kind of personal imperative not to needlessly harm others. Therefore, it is logical that a human being which concerns itself with the moral dilemma of whether or not to eat animals can resolve this problem by abstaining from eating animals. This is the essence of the moral argument, and I think this much is essential for someone defending the vegetarian side of this debate. There are those who invoke various arguments from religious canon, twisting them around to generate reasons why this faith or that abhors killing, but we need only a secular version of this to draw a fairly tight argument against the killing of animals.
So we are not obligated to kill by our status as apex predator - the same conditions by which we dominate other beings also grants us the opportunity to save them. Nowhere is it written that a being which can kill, should. -
2018-02-22 at 12:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I do try not to hurt other creatures unless they hurt me, but at the same time I really like eating meat and don't think there is a good reason to stop. Some animals might be harmed in the process but I suppose that doesn't really bother me.
Would it bother you to see a dog or a cat get beaten by its owner? -
2018-02-22 at 12:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick 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.
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.
Nobody needs to defend their choice of diet. Especially to a sniveling beta like you. Now fuck off before I fry you in your own fat and crumble over a slab of veal stuffed with some other varieties of near extinct but tasty mammals. -
2018-02-22 at 12:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Nobody needs to defend their choice of diet. Especially to a sniveling beta like you. Now fuck off before I fry you in your own fat and crumble over a slab of veal stuffed with some other varieties of near extinct but tasty mammals.
If you entered this thread, yes you do. If you don't have any interest in doing that, kill yourself. -
2018-02-22 at 12:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Cheetahs and panthers and tigers and wolves don't have the capacity for moral decisionmaking. If you tried to teach them about utilitarian ethics and how they can be applied to the animals they kill and eat, they would probably kill and eat you. Humans have ethical reasoning, and most of us embrace some kind of personal imperative not to needlessly harm others. Therefore, it is logical that a human being which concerns itself with the moral dilemma of whether or not to eat animals can resolve this problem by abstaining from eating animals. This is the essence of the moral argument, and I think this much is essential for someone defending the vegetarian side of this debate. There are those who invoke various arguments from religious canon, twisting them around to generate reasons why this faith or that abhors killing, but we need only a secular version of this to draw a fairly tight argument against the killing of animals.
So we are not obligated to kill by our status as apex predator - the same conditions by which we dominate other beings also grants us the opportunity to save them. Nowhere is it written that a being which can kill, should.
Since we are moral animals, do you recognise that as moral animals we must be consistent with our morals in regards to the killing of animals? Why are you not using your morals to stop the killing of animals by other animals? Why are you not going around the jungle to prevent animals from killing animals? Do you agree that you are being selective in your morality regarding the killing of animals by using our own physical capabilities of killing animals while ignoring our capabilities of preventing the killing of animals by other animals? -
2018-02-22 at 1:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Daily Since we are moral animals, do you recognise that as moral animals we must be consistent with our morals in regards to the killing of animals? Why are you not using your morals to stop the killing of animals by other animals? Why are you not going around the jungle to prevent animals from killing animals? Do you agree that you are being selective in your morality regarding the killing of animals by using our own physical capabilities of killing animals while ignoring our capabilities of preventing the killing of animals by other animals?
I do not advocate imposing my abstinence from meat upon animal life for several reasons. I'll start with three because I'm trying to smoke weed rn:
1) Depriving an animal of food is abuse, especially given that they are incapable of reasoning their way to a meatless alternative.
2) Many animals (i.e. cheetahs) are incapable of certain biologically necessary processes without ingesting meat.
3) My own vegetarianism carries an ecological point - the segregation of the world of humans and of animals is best for both groups at this time, so it's not ideal for them to be appropriating our morality (even if they could be forced to). -
2018-02-22 at 1:08 AM UTCI have like 3 or 4 filet mignons in my freezer. It would be immoral not to eat it within the near future. That shit dings!
-
2018-02-22 at 1:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by RestStop I have like 3 or 4 filet mignons in my freezer. It would be immoral not to eat it within the near future. That shit dings!
I mean, it's not like you can reassemble it into an animal. No need to waste what you've already murdered. I think the most morally responsible thing you could do with that meat is to mail it to a needy family in a developing country.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-22 at 1:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I do not advocate imposing my abstinence from meat upon animal life for several reasons. I'll start with three because I'm trying to smoke weed rn:
1) Depriving an animal of food is abuse, especially given that they are incapable of reasoning their way to a meatless alternative.
2) Many animals (i.e. cheetahs) are incapable of certain biologically necessary processes without ingesting meat.
3) My own vegetarianism carries an ecological point - the segregation of the world of humans and of animals is best for both groups at this time, so it's not ideal for them to be appropriating our morality (even if they could be forced to).
1) Since they are incapable of reasoning, and you are a moral homo sapien who wants the best for all animals, why are you not campaigning for human intervention to replace predator-hunted meat with other protein-rich substitutes? Why are you only depriving homo sapiens of meat when other predators kill and eat other animals?
2) Incorrect. These predators need protein, not meat. The evolutionary formed ecosystem has allowed protein to exist in the form of prey.
3) So you are actually okay with animals being killed and eaten - you just don't want homo sapiens to kill and eat them? lol. -
2018-02-22 at 1:27 AM UTC
-
2018-02-22 at 1:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I mean, it's not like you can reassemble it into an animal. No need to waste what you've already murdered. I think the most morally responsible thing you could do with that meat is to mail it to a needy family in a developing country.
Mail your meat to Ethiopia. It's not like you're using it.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-22 at 1:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Cheetahs and panthers and tigers and wolves don't have the capacity for moral decisionmaking. If you tried to teach them about utilitarian ethics and how they can be applied to the animals they kill and eat, they would probably kill and eat you. Humans have ethical reasoning, and most of us embrace some kind of personal imperative not to needlessly harm others. Therefore, it is logical that a human being which concerns itself with the moral dilemma of whether or not to eat animals can resolve this problem by abstaining from eating animals. This is the essence of the moral argument, and I think this much is essential for someone defending the vegetarian side of this debate. There are those who invoke various arguments from religious canon, twisting them around to generate reasons why this faith or that abhors killing, but we need only a secular version of this to draw a fairly tight argument against the killing of animals.
So we are not obligated to kill by our status as apex predator - the same conditions by which we dominate other beings also grants us the opportunity to save them. Nowhere is it written that a being which can kill, should.
Even being a vegetarian I totally disagree with this. I think if you kill it yourself in the wild or on your farm or whatever, it's perfectly fine to eat it
I also think that would keep the vast majority of people today away from eating it in the first place though
It's not killing or eating animals that I take issue with, it's the way the animals are treated, all the hormones and shit that gets pumped into them, and all the feces and bad things that make it into the final productThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-22 at 1:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Daily 1) Since they are incapable of reasoning, and you are a moral homo sapien who wants the best for all animals, why are you not campaigning for human intervention to replace predator-hunted meat with other protein-rich substitutes? Why are you only depriving homo sapiens of meat when other predators kill and eat other animals?
2) Incorrect. These predators need protein, not meat. The evolutionary formed ecosystem has allowed protein to exist in the form of prey.
3) So you are actually okay with animals being killed and eaten - you just don't want homo sapiens to kill and eat them? lol.
I'm opposed to engineering the moral lives of animals just as I'm opposed to harming them. I don't believe they should be subject to the terrors of human industry, but what happens in the wild is their business. -
2018-02-22 at 1:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick So we are not obligated to kill by our status as apex predator - the same conditions by which we dominate other beings also grants us the opportunity to save them.
I still don't understand why you are not saving all of those animals from being killed by other animals with your reasonable, moral brain, Zanick. Why are you so adamant in depriving us homo sapiens from meat while allowing all of these other animals from killing and eating other animals when we have the opportunity to save them?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-22 at 1:39 AM UTC
-
2018-02-22 at 1:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I'm opposed to engineering the moral lives of animals just as I'm opposed to harming them. I don't believe they should be subject to the terrors of human industry, but what happens in the wild is their business.
Human industry is the wild. Stop pretending we aren't just wild ass animals just because you can philosophize some shit. Plus, having your throat torn out by a wolf isn't less horrifying than any of the methods we use to kill animals. Subjecting animals to industrial farming is almost noble by comparison to what other animals do to eachother in the wild. Which you're okay with.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-22 at 1:44 AM UTCZanick, do you actually believe domesticating an animal and then stunning it before quickly shooting it in the head is less moral than allowing a predator to rip it to shreds while it slowly bleeds out, suffering while it wonders what it could have been?
I think you should go out right now and get yourself a nice cheeseburger as a tribute to the cow that offered its labour and domestication for your consumption. Not doing so is objectively immoral.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-22 at 2:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Would it bother you to see a dog or a cat get beaten by its owner?
Sure it would. Video footage of factory farms bothers me too. I think it would be great if the animals were treated better. I still think it's fine to eat meat. I believe killing an animal to consume it is not the same as torturing another living being. It is the natural way of life.
