Is eating meat morally wrong

[TW Scott]

Look into it. There are plenty of sites on the internet which will show you how.

I've already listed some vegetarian sources of B12 earlier in this thread. Go look. Or Google it.

Others have proposed specific foods, including spirulina, nori, tempeh, and barley grass, as suitable non-animal sources of B12. Such claims have not stood the test of time. from Vegan Society

Now the only way around this is B12 fortified foods. Which come from animals and animals by-products. Now a vegetarian might be able to live decently, but a Vegan is playing a game of Russain roulette and squeezing the trigger six times. He might die soon or he might die really soon. There is no surviving.

Well, I can't say that of the many vegetarians I know.

Of course not, it would completely blow your theory out of the water.

Yes they do. No cow breeds unless its owner wants it to. When the owner wants calves, he or she puts a bull in with the cows. At other times, bulls are separated from cows.

Obviously you have not seen a real herd. A farmer may encourage breeding, but you can't stop fate.

In fact, only female dairy cows are valued in the dairy industry, for obvious reasons. Virtually ALL male cows bred on dairy farms are sold for meat, whether they are Fresian, Angus, or whatever.

Not on the ones around here. They keep the healthy Fresian for breeding.

On the other hand, meat producers generally favour steers (neutered males), since they grow to a larger size than females in a shorter time.

Actually, the meat industry is completely nuetral about gender. Males are heavier but females produce better marbling. It's a trade off.

Bottom line: when the cattle breed is totally controlled. What they breed is culled, according to economic considerations.

Not entirely true, I am guessing you have OCD where something is 100% one way or 100% the other. You fail to realize that 99.9999999% of the world does not subscribe to that

So, if we could check the health of humans to ensure cannibalism wouldn't pass on any nasty diseases, then eating humans would be fine?

Maybe and we eat the vegans first of course too much meat eating makes human flesh taste funny. (jk)

 

[James R]

Here's a source for everything you need to know about vitamin B12 and its sources.

Vitamin B12 in the Vegan Diet

Of course, if you're not vegan, B12 is easy. You'll get enough from milk, eggs or yoghurt, for example.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Now the only way around this is B12 fortified foods. Which come from animals and animals by-products.

In fact, only bacteria make B12. Animals do not, and neither do plants. Maybe you ought to have read some more of the source you quoted before cutting and pasting.

There's nothing else worth responding to in your post, of course.

 

[TW Scott]

Maybe you should consult your doctor. B12 is made by certain bacteria, but to be readily absorbed by the human body you either have to have some rather specific liquids or have animal flesh/by-products.


Of course you won't respond becuase you are wrong and you know it. You flee from facts unless you can twist them and bow that I am presenting facts than cannot be twisted for your benefit you refuse to respond to them. DOesn't matter in the end what you do James R, you are still as wrong as you are in the beginning.

 

[hug-a-tree]

oh really? did u know that majority of chemicals that today save millions of people's life were developed only as a result of majority of tests of these chemicals and their effect on animals? We are part of a human community/society, thus morality pertains to the ways of serving our humanity in the best way, in the process of which collateral damage is inevitalbe and even crucial for further development of our society to sustain itself.

Yes, but did you know there are other ways to do it?

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

All this talk of B12 is irrelevant, and you know it. If people really are short of B12, they can take supplements.

But if you're vegetarian and you eat eggs or yoghurt, you'll have no problems. Like I said.

 

[draqon]

TW Scott:

All this talk of B12 is irrelevant, and you know it. If people really are short of B12, they can take supplements.

But if you're vegetarian and you eat eggs or yoghurt, you'll have no problems. Like I said.

its irrelivant now... and if u were a vegan since u were born, it will become revelant when you turn 35 years old. You will feel what freeB12 environment is, the pain that lies from malnutrition.

 

[TW Scott]

It is not irrelevant. It's not the main point but one of millions of suppoorting points.

But I do have one. According to you if we do not need to do it to survive then it is immoral. That is the gist of your statement, right. Or is that as long as were not harming others. Or is it the combination.

If it is the first: The charity is immoral as we dodn't need to do it to survive. (Wait that isn't right. So obviously a thing can be unneccesary and still be good.)

Second: The speeding on an empty highway is moral. (Oh wait no it isn't, you're violating the law for no good reason.) And killing man who is about to kill your children is immoral. (oh wait that is the moral thing to do)



Third: If it a combination then it is still moral to not risk your life to save others. I mean it is not like you put them in harms way right and your well being is not endangered. (oh wait that is immoral ) By your defination it would also be moral to throw your friend on a live grenade to dampen the blast that would normally have killed you both becuase it satisfies your need to survive and the harming no one as he would have died anyway.


So your logic behind this is fualty something can be unneccessary and harm others but still be good.

 

[draqon]

I feel like I have approached and landed on a planet Vegan. While eating a chicken sandwich on this awsome green planet...I am was approached by many primitive-early-looking humanoid vegans...who at the first sight of me and my sandwich had raised their sticks and starting running after me, shouting bunch of nonsense at my side. And so I decided to lift my spaceship of this planet...overpopulated by Vegans....
High from the space I can see millions of Vegans, dying from hunger...since all edible vegitation has been eaten on the planet...while surrounded by mirriads of other animals. Next thing I know...I come back there in 10 years to this planet...and there are no Vegans left...but mountains of bones.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Switch your brain back on, please. It was working ok at the start of the thread, but lately it's just a complete mess.

But I do have one. According to you if we do not need to do it to survive then it is immoral. That is the gist of your statement, right.

No. I suggest you read the thread again to find out what the gist of my argument is.

Second: The speeding on an empty highway is moral. (Oh wait no it isn't, you're violating the law for no good reason.)

Speeding on an empty highway may be illegal and potentially dangerous, but that doesn't make it immoral. I think you need to sort out the difference between law and morality.

And killing man who is about to kill your children is immoral. (oh wait that is the moral thing to do)

This depends completely on the circumstances. For example, if you can call the police and have the man arrested and brought to trial, then killing him on the spot would indeed be immoral.

What's up with the simplistic yet way-out hypotheticals, TW Scott? I suggest that, before you present any more of these, you first run them by somebody else, or do a minimal amount of thinking about possible flaws in your scenarios. That way, you won't look quite as stupid when you post your half-baked ideas here.

If it a combination then it is still moral to not risk your life to save others. I mean it is not like you put them in harms way right and your well being is not endangered.

Whether there is a general moral duty to rescue is an interesting moral issue. It is also an interesting legal issue. For example, suppose you know first aid, and you come across a car crash in which somebody has been badly injured and will die without your help. Are you morally obliged to help? Are you legally obliged to help?

This is a discussion we could have in another thread.

By your defination it would also be moral to throw your friend on a live grenade to dampen the blast that would normally have killed you both becuase it satisfies your need to survive and the harming no one as he would have died anyway.

If you could instead throw yourself on the grenade, do you think that would be a better course of action, TW? Or are you too self-centred to consider that?

 

[Meathead]

Until cattle, pig, chicken, duck, giant panda, white tiger, or any other species, endangered or not invent something superior to the cleaver and frypan I will satisfy and be grateful for my position that allows me to eat meat. Immoral I think not.

 

[James R]

Several people have raised the moral relativism argument in this thread. "If you want to be vegetarian, that's fine; just don't try to impose your morality on meat eaters. There's nothing wrong with eating meat."

This relies on a subjective view of morality, which I might discuss in more detail later. However, for now I thought I would copy a post I wrote in response to another thread, so all you subjectivists can decide exactly what your moral position is...

Briefly:

There are two points of view on morality: either morality is objective, or it is subjective.

Some argue that morality is "out there", independent of individuals. This is the objective point of view, which I won't discuss in detail here, since you have raised one of the subjective viewpoints.

There are at least 3 subjective viewpoints you can hold about morality:

1. subjectivism: Saying something is wrong is no more than a claim that you personally disapprove of it.
2. intersubjectivism: Saying something is wrong is to claim that the community you consider yourself a member of disapproves of it.
3. emotivism: Saying something is wrong is actually nothing other than barracking against the thing. No actual claim is being made.

When you barrack for a football team "Go the Cats!" or whatever, you're not making any direct claim. The statement "Go the Cats!" is neither right nor wrong. In barracking you're not even making a claim about how you feel about the team - i.e. whether it is right or wrong to support the Cats. All you are doing is expressing how you feel about the team - emoting.

According to emotivism, saying something like "Murder is wrong" is nothing other than saying "Down with murder!" All you're doing is emoting about the act of murder - saying how it makes you feel.

One problem with all of the subjective theories of morality, including emotivism, is that they admit no possibility of anybody ever making a moral error. If somebody claims "Murder is right", then according to subjectivism, they can't be wrong, since they're only expressing a personal view. According to intersubjectivism, if their community holds the same opinion, the community can't be wrong. And according to emotivism, there's no claim being made which you could be mistaken about.

This conclusion seems untenable to me; I don't know about you. Do you believe nobody can be mistaken in their moral positions on things?

 

[James R]

Why do you think it is moral to eat meat, Meathead?

 

[Meathead]

Maybe that statement of mine that is was moral was a little drastic. I haven't really EVER been concerned with whether or not i was moral to eat meat and haven't really looked at a piece of meat as if it used to be a living creature. That may seem unusal, I don't know. I don't really want to bring up definitions or opinion of natural order etc. etc because I'm not sure that's what this hread is asking for exactly.

 

[James R]

You're not alone, Meathead. Many people never consider that the piece of meat on their dinner plate used to be a conscious, sentient animal. And if they do think of it in passing, they soon forget about it. What's the suffering of an animal, compared to a good feed? They don't let it bother them.

By the way, the subject of the thread is: "Is eating meat morally wrong?"

Fairly straight forward question, if you ask me. Either it is morally wrong to eat meat, or it is morally acceptable. If you're going to express an opinion either way, it seems to me that it is reasonable to expect an explanation of WHY you think it is moral or immoral, too.

 

[Meathead]

Well when you put it that way, and although I'm one of the ones who never thought about it, I suppose it's just the natural liking that I have to eat meat. I like the taste etc. etc. Although I cannot help whether it is morally wrong, I cannot also help the fact that my desire to eat meat is strong. It makes a good meal in my opinion.

Now that you've got me justifying my opinion, I'm noticing it's alot more difficult to justify than it being immoral. I didn't really want to state what has already been stated numerous times such as animals eat animals bla bla.

 

[James R]

A lot of the common arguments for meat eating (health, the "natural order", etc.) have been covered earlier in this thread. None of them stand up too well as a moral justification for eating meat. Have a read, if you're interested.

I must say, I appreciate your honesty, Meathead, and I'm glad you're thinking about this. There are a number of people participating in this thread who essentially won't even admit there's an issue to be discussed regarding the morality of eating meat. Sadly, they're deluding only themselves.

 

[Meathead]

Had your initial approach to my comment not been as genuinely understanding I might not have been as honest either. I've realised in my short life that the main problem is generally the highest priority is defending their own opinion rather than understanding opposing opinions first. It's a nice change for someone to have realised that too.

 

[draqon]

A lot of the common arguments for meat eating (health, the "natural order", etc.) have been covered earlier in this thread. None of them stand up too well as a moral justification for eating meat. Have a read, if you're interested.

I must say, I appreciate your honesty, Meathead, and I'm glad you're thinking about this. There are a number of people participating in this thread who essentially won't even admit there's an issue to be discussed regarding the morality of eating meat. Sadly, they're deluding only themselves.

you are deluding yourself. You have been given 80 years or so on average to live on this planet, enjoy it to the fullest, keeping the world a happy place. Animals were ment to be eaten by humans, this is a human world, and this has been a human world right from the start of human civilization.

 

[Meathead]

you are deluding yourself

He doesn't eat meat because in his opinion it is immoral. It's not a question of whether he enjoys it or not. If he honestly believes it's immoral don't you think he'd enjoy not eating more?