So I've been Vegetarian for about 6 weeks

[Nil]

Originally Posted by B1FF

I don't see how it can be better for all parties, since I then wouldn't be eating meat.

+100

I enjoy the taste of meat, I can afford meat and I generally choose to by organic free range meat. I have see no moral or ethical problem with consuming something we are biologically designed to eat.

 

[DicDictionary]

Originally Posted by Ludeykrus

This is why instead of giving up on meat entirely, I would rather shoot and kill my own animals. This way, I know that I am helping the habitat, I am humanely killing my food, I know exactly how my food is handled and processed, and I actually have to have the animal die by my own hand for me to be able to use it. This makes sure that I keep keep everything in perspective, and that I respect the animal.

This is a big part of my moral reasoning. However, I simply don't have the time or opportunity to catch and kill all of my own meat, so I'm not going to eat it. I don't have a problem if you go and kill an animal with a gun and then eat it. You put in the energy, you understand how the animal lives, it's out there in nature running around, with the threat of death, just like you are when you're out in the woods hunting (yeah, you have a gun, trust me, there are animals that most guns don't stop and they live near me).

Originally Posted by kwiteaboy

Could we discuss them? I eat meat and wear leather, but I have yet to hear a secular reason why eating animals is okay but eating people is not.

It would disrupt the socio-political order. When such an order doesn't exist (e.g. Donner party and Andes place crash), we eat each other. With fava beans and a nice Chianti.

 

[kwiteaboy]

My previous post may have come across as though I was asking why we couldn't eat people. That was not my intent. I have no desire to eat people

 

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by kwiteaboy

My previous post may have come across as though I was asking why we couldn't eat people.
Don't worry, I think everybody understood you were trying to draw a parallel and utterly failed.

 

[kwiteaboy]

Originally Posted by Étienne

Don't worry, I think everybody understood you were trying to draw a parallel and utterly failed.

Glad to hear it. Since you're here, care to share your personal justification for denying direct moral status to animals?

 

[hi-val]

Maaaaan, "personal justification" is so loaded so as to be prohibitive to actual discussion.




Congrats about trying and sticking with a different diet style! I suggest lots of eggplant, as they're delicious.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by kwiteaboy

Glad to hear it. Since you're here, care to share your personal justification for denying direct moral status to animals?

Without getting into a long-winded discussion of morality and ultimately epistemology? Damn, that's tough.

 

[kwiteaboy]

Originally Posted by why

Without getting into a long-winded discussion of morality and ultimately epistemology? Damn, that's tough.
I would hope it would include some discussion of morality; otherwise, I don't see how it would be a justification. All I'm looking for, from anybody, is a compelling and sound argument that animals do not warrant direct moral consideration and the reasons why. This is not an attack on anyone, but for my own curiosity's sake. I have honestly never heard an argument against animal rights that did not rely on speciesism or theology, neither of which is particularly strong in support. Speciesism, in relying on arbitrary biological markers to assign worth (i.e., why use species? Why not use kingdom, phylum, order, family, or genus?), is too similar to racism to be a strong argument for denying direct moral status. While different species are different in biologically important ways, it does not necessarily follow that these biological differences justify differences in moral consideration any more than differences in human skin color justify racism. There must be some other qualities that humans alone possess that justify eating animals but not people, so what are they?

 

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by kwiteaboy

Glad to hear it. Since you're here, care to share your personal justification for denying direct moral status to animals?
Not really, no.

 

[Nico Samuel Pleninsek]

Originally Posted by kwiteaboy

I would hope it would include some discussion of morality; otherwise, I don't see how it would be a justification.

All I'm looking for, from anybody, is a compelling and sound argument that animals do not warrant direct moral consideration and the reasons why. This is not an attack on anyone, but for my own curiosity's sake. I have honestly never heard an argument against animal rights that did not rely on speciesism or theology, neither of which is particularly strong in support. Speciesism, in relying on arbitrary biological markers to assign worth (i.e., why use species? Why not use kingdom, phylum, order, family, or genus?), is too similar to racism to be a strong argument for denying direct moral status. While different species are different in biologically important ways, it does not necessarily follow that these biological differences justify differences in moral consideration any more than differences in human skin color justify racism. There must be some other qualities that humans alone possess that justify eating animals but not people, so what are they?

You think in strange ways.

 

[denimdestroyedmylife]

My guess is that the ability to reason renders would-be menu items unpalatable.
Animals are dumb therefore edible.
Chess-playing cheeseburgers, for example, would be rejected outright.
However, we would not consider eating mentally marsupialed humans because they have special status as "one of us".

So yeah. I don't know. Since animals can't reason, and aren't marsupialed humans, they are food.

 

[Jimsonweed]

Originally Posted by Nil

I have see no moral or ethical problem with consuming something we are biologically designed to eat.


Designed? By who? Unless you are coming at this from a religious angle, (which isn't worth arguing against) I think capable is a more accurate word. Your argument is fallacious because there are any number of things we are capable of doing that are ethically unsound. The omnivorous nature of man is an evolutionary adaptation that allows us to thrive in varied environments. It is possible to abstain from eating meat and be perfectly healthy in our current environment. Eating meat causes suffering to animals, and that suffering should at least be considered. No one is saying the only moral option is to starve yourself to death.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by kwiteaboy

I would hope it would include some discussion of morality; otherwise, I don't see how it would be a justification.

I said 'long-winded' for a reason.

All I'm looking for, from anybody, is a compelling and sound argument that animals do not warrant direct moral consideration and the reasons why.

Argumentum ad Ignorantium.

 

[GraphicNovelty]

Originally Posted by Jimsonweed

The omnivorous nature of man is an evolutionary adaptation that allows us to thrive in varied environments. It is possible to abstain from eating meat and be perfectly healthy in our current environment. Eating meat causes suffering to animals, and that suffering should at least be considered. No one is saying the only moral option is to starve yourself to death.

+1

Edit: whoops, didn't mean to bump a really old thread (Forgot i had searched it instead of just clicking on it).

 

[surfnbank]

I haven't eaten any red meat for about 12 years now and have to say that I am fine with it. Though there are health benefits I don't think they are anything greater than making sure you eat the correct amount of lean meat.