Meat Eaters = Selfish (Steve & Bill)

[The Sum of Awe]

I love my meat, although it is is sad that they are butchered in mass numbers and such, besides that I see no reason why not to eat it.

I'm sure you would love a lot of things that involves killing others. If it were legal, would you kill Bill Gates and take all of his money, just for the sake of your wants?

 

[Madhuri]

And humans and animals are not equivalent.

Either we're the same essentially and therefore cannot be immoral for our natures or we're somehow different and therefore operate on different rules including ethical treatment.

Yes, because humans are capable of acting ethically. If we choose to.
But you keep using the weak argument of 'it's natural, therefore it's right' to avoid the ethical concerns inherent in this topic.

 

[kaknelson]

I'm sure you would love a lot of things that involves killing others. If it were legal, would you kill Bill Gates and take all of his money, just for the sake of your wants?

What things do you think i love that involves killing others? I just like a good lamb thigh and thd a bbq and the gods love it too.

 

[Madhuri]

What things do you think i love that involves killing others? I just like a good lamb thigh and thd a bbq and the gods love it too.

The principle is that one will justify the means for the sake of the end.
So killing is justified because you like meat. So if you like money, is killing a person justified? And if not, why not?

I think that's what Sum is getting at.

 

[Drolefille]

Why not draw the line narrower at eating members of our own race?

Because we think we're nice like that.

Because there's no genetic difference between races and species are not the same thing.

The continued equivalence of race to species in this discussion and the comparisons to the holocaust and slavery are disgusting and show a significant dishonesty on your part.

 

[kaknelson]

The principle is that one will justify the means for the sake of the end.
So killing is justified because you like meat. So if you like money, is killing a person justified? And if not, why not?

I think that's what Sum is getting at.

That does not sound very convincing or comparable to me.

 

[Valjean]

Or we can be equally morally consistent and draw the line at eating members of our own species. Or we can be equally morally consistent and draw the line at eating non-apes or non-apes and non-cetaceans.

There's nothing morally inconsistent about that, it just means we disagree with your conclusions. Or premises.

Arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere doesn't justify an action, Drolefille. Moral consistency involves applying a principle wherever it applies.
Drawing a line at our own species may be a traditional cultural norm, but it's not morally consistent.

 

[Drolefille]

Yes, because humans are capable of acting ethically. If we choose to.
But you keep using the weak argument of 'it's natural, therefore it's right' to avoid the ethical concerns inherent in this topic.

No, I don't really feel like I'm avoiding anything because I find nothing unethical with eating an animal. I'm not having to justify anything because I simply find nothing wrong with it, nor contradictory about my opinion, and I've examined it.

Every animal lives with the concern of becoming food for another animal barring your average apex predator in good health. Healthy apex predators rarely if ever fear anything. Humans, lucky us, are apex predators. Just because we can choose not to be, doesn't mean we are ethically obligated not to be. We adapted with brains and tools rather than teeth and claws. The existance of our society is all that prevents our unhealthy or elderly from becoming victims of scavengers, rather than grandparents and loved ones.

People are perfectly free to choose not to eat meat, or animal products, and can have all sorts of beliefs about it, that's all cool. But that doesn't make them more moral, or meat eaters less moral. They're both perfectly valid choices. I'm not arguing that natural = more moral or automatically ethical, but i'm hard pressed to see how the basic function of nature is inherently immoral or unethical. Particularly when take to the extremes where not just mammals, but birds, fish, molluscs and insects are all too "human-like" to be eaten. That doesn't make the slightest bit of logical sense to me as an ethical argument.

Were our prey animals not eaten, they'd either not exist at all, or be eaten by other animals. Not eating them doesn't reduce suffering of animals, it reduces the number of animals. The rest are still going to die horrible deaths - predation, starvation, disease, injury. That's just life.

I figure if an animal wouldn't have an ethical problem eating me, because it doesn't have ethics, then I have no ethical problem eating it, because it doesn't have ethics.

 

[Drolefille]

Arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere doesn't justify an action, Drolefille. Moral consistency involves applying a principle wherever it applies.
Drawing a line at our own species may be a traditional cultural norm, but it's not morally consistent.

A line at sapience is still a principle.
No matter how arbitrary, one can still be consistent.

And regardless, please tell me how I, for example, am being morally inconsistent with my standards rather than just assuming I am. (Asking to be used as an example specifically here so I follow you.)

I see nothing in a cow that tells me it is wrong it eat it. I don't see love, I don't see ethics, I don't see humanity or sapience, I don't see the ability for the cow to think about thinking and have an actual awareness of 'self' not just the body but the mind. None of those things that might make me feel bad about eating a cow, that might make me feel morally inconsistent exists.

The reasons we don't eat our own species have lot to do with ethics, but also include safety reasons, taboos and other cultural limitations rather than ethical ones. Some cultures will eat a deceased human being though that person was not killed for food but died in war or due to natural causes. Is that ethically wrong? I'm actually hard pressed to say yes, but it's taboo to me. It's also unsafe physically and it makes most people squeamish. But independent of all of that, is it inherently wrong?

 

[Madhuri]

How do you define morality?

Were our prey animals not eaten, they'd either not exist at all, or be eaten by other animals. Not eating them doesn't reduce suffering of animals, it reduces the number of animals. The rest are still going to die horrible deaths - predation, starvation, disease, injury. That's just life.

And life sucks. No need to make it worse. No need to breed hoards of animals in order to torture and slaughter them.

I figure if an animal wouldn't have an ethical problem eating me, because it doesn't have ethics, then I have no ethical problem eating it, because it doesn't have ethics.

How is this logical justification? If a toddler has no ethical concerns with stealing my car keys and wallet from my handbag, am I then justified in stealing its toys?
If a school kid has no ethical concerns with bullying/teasing other children, am I then justified in bullying the kid?

Nope. I don't think so. Of course I have the power to steal and bully from the immature and less intelligent, but my sense of ethics stops me from causing the powerless harm. Same reason I wouldn't take advantage of a powerless and less intelligent animal by killing it.

Also, humans in a natural habitat would have plenty to fear from. Take your average person into the jungle and see how long they will survive.

 

[Madhuri]

I see nothing in a cow that tells me it is wrong it eat it. I don't see love, I don't see ethics, I don't see humanity or sapience, I don't see the ability for the cow to think about thinking and have an actual awareness of 'self' not just the body but the mind. None of those things that might make me feel bad about eating a cow, that might make me feel morally inconsistent exists.

I see love from cows. You might see instinct, but i've seen cows behave very affectionately toward one another (calling for each other, cuddling and grooming etc.).
Why is 'humanity' a criteria?
In fact, why is sapience a criteria? When you are hurting/haring something, shouldn't the criteria be it's ability to feel and suffer? You don't need sapience or high intelligence in order to suffer greatly.

If someone was torturing a cat, would it make you feel bad for the cat?
I would. And I also feel bad that it suffers when we breed and then kill it. Why should you feel bad for a cat being physically harmed but not for the cow being slaughtered?

The reasons we don't eat our own species have lot to do with ethics, but also include safety reasons, taboos and other cultural limitations rather than ethical ones. Some cultures will eat a deceased human being though that person was not killed for food but died in war or due to natural causes. Is that ethically wrong? I'm actually hard pressed to say yes, but it's taboo to me. It's also unsafe physically and it makes most people squeamish. But independent of all of that, is it inherently wrong?

The reason we don't eat other humans is entirely cultural. Which is why there have been many instances throughout history of humans eating humans and humans torturing humans. The reasons that you think about eating another human as being unethical or taboo or squeamish is the same for someone brought up in a vegetarian environment/community/culture in regards toward meat-eating.

 

[Valjean]

A line at sapience is still a principle.
No matter how arbitrary, one can still be consistent.

And regardless, please tell me how I, for example, am being morally inconsistent with my standards rather than just assuming I am. (Asking to be used as an example specifically here so I follow you.)

I see nothing in a cow that tells me it is wrong it eat it. I don't see love, I don't see ethics, I don't see humanity or sapience, I don't see the ability for the cow to think about thinking and have an actual awareness of 'self' not just the body but the mind. None of those things that might make me feel bad about eating a cow, that might make me feel morally inconsistent exists.

The reasons we don't eat our own species have lot to do with ethics, but also include safety reasons, taboos and other cultural limitations rather than ethical ones. Some cultures will eat a deceased human being though that person was not killed for food but died in war or due to natural causes. Is that ethically wrong? I'm actually hard pressed to say yes, but it's taboo to me. It's also unsafe physically and it makes most people squeamish. But independent of all of that, is it inherently wrong?

Good points, ma fille. Here's how I see it: Yes, sapience, or any other arbitrary feature, is a principle, but it's not one of the generally attributed characteristics that generate a feeling of moral obligation. Eg: we usually feel moral obligation toward other humans even when they aren't particularly sapient, such as babies, the senile or the mentally impaired. It's also true that some cultures have no problem exploiting or eating all sorts of other, out-group humans, which is why I speak of the generally accepted moral indicators like capacity for suffering or anticipation of futurity.

As for safety concerns, I see these as purely expedient, and not necessarily moral or ethical issues, (though one-time expediencies do evolve their way into religious injunctions with disturbing frequency).

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Because there's no genetic difference between races and species are not the same thing.

Still, they are different and that what makes them edible.

The continued equivalence of race to species in this discussion and the comparisons to the holocaust and slavery are disgusting and show a significant dishonesty on your part.

We were originally at white Christian males being the free ones, they then realized "well blacks are men too." Then in the 1900s "Women are people too" What if, just what if, someone comes along and says "Nonhuman animals are living creatures too"?

 

[Viker]

Still, they are different and that what makes them edible.



We were originally at white Christian males being the free ones, they then realized "well blacks are men too." Then in the 1900s "Women are people too" What if, just what if, someone comes along and says "Nonhuman animals are living creatures too"?

Simple, non-human animals can't vote, sign their signatures, etc. That isn't what makes their destruction for our consumption right/wrong. It just makes it acceptable within individual discretion.

Blacks and women.....they can vote and express their desire to participate in the affairs of all of us.

If the wholesale slaughter of non-humans is to become illegal one day then fine. I doubt they will be permitted to vote any time soon. Things like murder and voting rights are still just legal terms.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Simple, non-human animals can't vote, sign their signatures, etc. That isn't what makes their destruction for our consumption right/wrong. It just makes it acceptable within individual discretion.

That's not what I'm supporting at all, I'm not making them learn government or try to make them learn english and such, just supporting their freedom, they can live with their own species, yes I know it wont be the wonderworld we all wish for, but it is still freedom, we don't even give them a chance anymore, we just use guns on them when most of the time we don't even need their dead flesh in our mouths.

If the wholesale slaughter of non-humans is to become illegal one day then fine. I doubt they will be permitted to vote any time soon. Things like murder and voting rights are still just legal terms.

I'm not saying they get the right to vote... That's absurd.

 

[Drolefille]

Still, they are different and that what makes them edible.



We were originally at white Christian males being the free ones, they then realized "well blacks are men too." Then in the 1900s "Women are people too" What if, just what if, someone comes along and says "Nonhuman animals are living creatures too"?

No one is pretending they're not living creatures. Your own change in language evidences the difference. You didn't say that animals are people too for a reason. They're not people.

They are delicious living creatures.

/will reply to others when off mobile.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No one is pretending they're not living creatures. Your own change in language evidences the difference. You didn't say that animals are people too for a reason. They're not people.

I also didn't say blacks are people, I said they're men because women weren't considered people either at the time.

They are delicious living creatures.

So are you, can I slaughter you now?

 

[Drolefille]

I also didn't say blacks are people, I said they're men because women weren't considered people either at the time.



So are you, can I slaughter you now?

So animals are people, is that your claim?

Odd moral code you have, but I'm unimpressed with your fighting skills.

I'm the one claiming a difference between people and animals if you forgot; your attempt at a witty comeback is an airball.

 

[Viker]

That's not what I'm supporting at all, I'm not making them learn government or try to make them learn english and such, just supporting their freedom, they can live with their own species, yes I know it wont be the wonderworld we all wish for, but it is still freedom, we don't even give them a chance anymore, we just use guns on them when most of the time we don't even need their dead flesh in our mouths.




I'm not saying they get the right to vote... That's absurd.

You used a voting track ( first white guys, then... )as a reference.

"Freedom"? What is that?

Another legal term perhaps? They already have freedom.

(Note: the wholesale slaughter of non-human animals usually doesn't involve guns, ammo ain't cheap no more. For some reason machete's and blades are considered more efficient. )

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So animals are people, is that your claim?

Odd moral code you have, but I'm unimpressed with your fighting skills.

I'm the one claiming a difference between people and animals if you forgot; your attempt at a witty comeback is an airball.

Please tell me the difference then, and please prove how people are not animals.

It was a comeback that you couldn't reply to? Eh? Of course if I really met you you wouldn't let me eat you after making you suffer a long time on a hanger, being whipped dozens of times...