Is eating meat morally wrong

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Theoryofrelativity, Mar 14, 2006.

Page 43 of 47
  1. kazakhan

    kazakhan Registered Abuser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    kazakhan, Dec 19, 2007
    #841

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    you mean to say that if we didn't eat them like we do, we wouldn't breed them like we do?
     
    lightgigantic, Dec 19, 2007
    #842

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    lightgigantic, Dec 19, 2007
    #843

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sowhatifit'sdark

    sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    It an incredibly inefficient way to get protein. It takes much more energy, arable land, time and money to make a pound of meat protein.

    Animals that are bred for food are causing untold problems via their waste.

    Animal products are much more likely to hold pollutants, toxins, antibiotics, etc. over other protein sources. We are exposing ourselves to much more carcinogens if we eat meat.

    Currently animals are treated poorly and some have quite limited horrible lives.

    Colon cancer.

    Body odor.

    Consumer cost.

    Methane from cow GI tracts and its effects on the atmosphere.

    The fact that we have to hide much of the unpleasantness from ourselves and from our children. A kind of cultural denial.

    These are some practical reasons, that obviously have moral issues surrounding them, for shifting society away from the levels of meat eating we currently have.
     
    sowhatifit'sdark, Dec 19, 2007
    #844
  8. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    which is why hunting is good.
     
    Orleander, Dec 19, 2007
    #845
  9. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Orleander, wtf !?
     
    Enmos, Dec 19, 2007
    #846
  10. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    cows are much worse for the environment than the animals who live in the wild. Wild animals also have leaner meat.
    Wouldn't it be better for us and the planet to eat wild animals?
     
    Orleander, Dec 19, 2007
    #847
  11. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Sure... Orleander.. :bugeye:

    How long do you think there will be wild animals around if we all do that ?
    Do I need to remind you of the fact that the world population is about 6.6 billion !?
     
    Enmos, Dec 19, 2007
    #848
  12. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    We Americans think we need meat at every meal. We don't. My Mom canned a deer every year and our family of 7 did just fine.
     
    Orleander, Dec 19, 2007
    #849
  13. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So how will you educate these people that think they need meat every day, will you succeed ?

    "My Mom canned a deer every year"
    Nominated for most awful sentence of the year LOL

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Enmos, Dec 19, 2007
    #850
  14. sowhatifit'sdark

    sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    If they eat the meat or the meat gets eaten by humans and they followed all the rules and the act itself was not slimy, sure. Within very strict bounds it can be good.

    What it is, out there, in general in the world, is a mixed bag.

    Remember that hunters killed off the predators of the most of the animals they hunt now. So the starvation issue is caused by hunting - often not for food. Also hunting is better than other kinds of meat eating - if all my provisos above are followed.

    But meat eating in general is a serious problem.
     
    sowhatifit'sdark, Dec 19, 2007
    #851
  15. madanthonywayne

    madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Doing what is natural is moral so long as it does not violate someone else's rights. So while it may be natural for me to want to have sex with every hot chick I see, I don't rape them because that would violate their rights. It would be wrong.

    But animals have no right to not be eaten. As I said above, rights derive from natural law or a social contract. An animal in the state of nature has no right or expectation that he will not be eaten. Furthermore, an animal lacks the mental capacity to form or understand any social contract.

    Since an animal has no rights, and it is natural and healthy for humans to eat meat, there is no moral reason not to do so.
     
    madanthonywayne, Dec 19, 2007
    #852
  16. shichimenshyo

    shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Werd
     
    shichimenshyo, Dec 19, 2007
    #853
  17. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    so if we can't draw up a social contract with a mentally retarded person, there's no moral issues for someone who eats them?
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2007
    lightgigantic, Dec 19, 2007
    #854
  18. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    lucifers angel:

    I suggest you read the early parts of this thread. You are repeating arguments that were fully rebutted earlier, and I am getting a little sick of repeating myself. Nevertheless...

    I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. Were apes "designed" to be eaten, according to you? Monkeys? Dogs? Cattle?

    Who "designed" them to be eaten? And which other animals, apart from humans, were not "designed" to be eaten?

    Also, if humans are not "designed" to be eaten, why do humans nevertheless get attacked by crocodiles, sharks, lions and other predators from time to time? Are those animals making a terrible mistake? Didn't God tell them about his "design" plan?


    Who says the bible is the last word on morality? This is the same book in which it is considered right to give up your daughter to a crowd for gang rape if the crowd comes to your house and demands you give up a guest.

    The "appeal to nature" fallacy is that what is natural is automatically good. It is not true that everything that is natural is good, or that everything unnatural is bad. Is using contraception bad? Because it's not natural. Is killing members of the neighbouring tribe good? Because that seems to come quite naturally.

    In other words, a vegetarian diet is perfectly adequate to supply a person's nutritional needs. But that is not the topic of this thread. The question of this thread is: which diet is more moral? Answer: vegetarian.

    It is false that the animal rights position seeks no contact with animals. It is also false that the animal rights position precludes keeping animals as pets. In fact, I think you'll find that many animal rights campaigners keep pets.

    Also, nobody is trying to "rewrite" evolutionary history. The point is simply that just because something was "traditionally" done in the past doesn't mean it is right and good in today's world. That has to be established.

    And so....?

    You may not realise that the vast majority of animals you eat not only die for your pleasure, but also live solely for your culinary habits. If people did not eat meat, vast numbers of animals would not be brought into existence, deliberately bred to live short and miserable lives only to be killed and put on your plate.

    Read the thread.

    They would not be alive in the first place.
     
    James R, Dec 20, 2007
    #855
  19. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    madanthonywayne:

    In this case, it is the animal's right to [enc]equal consideration[/enc] that is violated.

    Then why do you have such a right? You're an animal.

    Read the section on "Claiming their rights" here: [enc]equal consideration[/enc].

    (Haven't I explained this to you before? What did you not understand?)
     
    James R, Dec 20, 2007
    #856
  20. srikar

    srikar Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    66
    Tiger(animals) can't digest the plants so it has to choose meat only, but we can. why don't we go for veg.

    Dear sir/madam,
    don't think otherwise,
    God given us brain also, so we have to use it before eating meat.
     
    srikar, Dec 21, 2007
    #857
  21. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    So God gave you your brain?? I understand now why you think its immoral. I suppose you think animals have a soul as well?

    My brain, that I got from evolution, tells me to pick porterhouse streaks and get them med rare.
     
    Orleander, Dec 21, 2007
    #858
  22. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    If humans have one then animals have one too. Of course no creature has a soul as defined in the bible.
     
    Enmos, Dec 21, 2007
    #859
  23. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    And I don't think humans have a soul. We have self-awareness. I couldn't eat an animal that has self-awareness,like apes.
     
    Orleander, Dec 21, 2007
    #860
Page 43 of 47

Share This Page