I don't understand. Why is that problematic? If we couldn't manage without meat, then it could not be a issue, one can only make a moral issue of what is possible — unenlightened
The reality of carnivores, predation and death in nature as an essential part of the life cycle means that humans consuming meat cannot be considered an aberration — Andrew4Handel
and I don't know anyone that eats meat just to see animals suffer. — Andrew4Handel
I am never convinced that vegans have a realistic picture of nature where animals starve en masse, ,drown en masse, get eaten alive and don't retire to Old Persons homes. — Andrew4Handel
Personally I am a moral nihilist — Andrew4Handel
I think all we can have is a bit of hope that life is somehow on an upward trajectory and meaningful — Andrew4Handel
Eating meat is a legal, long-standing, socially approved, culturally familiar, doctor recommended, popular dietary behavior. — Bitter Crank
There is no reason why enjoyment is not a full and sufficient justification for doing it. — Bitter Crank
I have shown why with two very simple counter examples. — Thorongil
Because "ought implies can" (Kant). You cannot be morally obligated to do something that you cannot do. — NKBJ
Just because something is common does not make that thing right. — Thorongil
Ah, now we come to the origin of your confusion! If it's true that you're a moral nihilist, then your problem isn't with vegan moral arguments against eating meat but with moral arguments per se. — Thorongil
Most climate scientists would disagree. My understanding is that one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas accumulation is animal agriculture. Even if one had a Cartesian position that animals are automata that do not suffer at all, one would need to acknowledge the benefits of reduced meat consumption in terms of reduced human suffering from climate change.I don't really believe mass adherence to veganism would improve the world think there are other moral debates that could take precedence. — Andrew4Handel
But in the industrialized world at present, people eat meat merely out of habit or because it tastes good, which of course are very poor and shallow reasons to justify what even educated omnivores acknowledge is a pretty abusive and corrupt system of animal husbandry. — Thorongil
I like to eat meat. I like the way it tastes, smells, and feels. — T Clark
I've killed quite a few groundhogs in my yard because they damaged my wife's garden. I would catch them in a non-lethal trap then drown them in my children's kiddie pool. I'd always stand and watch for the minute it took for them to drown. It seemed fair I should at least watch. After a while, I stopped killing them. It was hard to watch. It wasn't a moral qualm, it was a personal, emotional one. — T Clark
I don't understand. Why is that problematic? If we couldn't manage without meat, then it could not be a[n] issue, one can only make a moral issue of what is possible. Personally, I have a rule not to eat anyone I haven't been introduced to; it's a matter of politeness. — unenlightened
It doesn't compromise it. It just makes it contextual. I would consider it a moral error for me to steal a loaf of bread in most circumstances. But if it was the only way I could feed a person that was starving, I would not consider it a moral error. — andrewk
Similarly, although I can see the significance, upon contemplation, of the ethics against eating meat and consuming animal products, it hasn't so far been compelling enough for me to drastically change my lifestyle, and that's not the end of the world. You only live once. — Sapientia
Would you eat ugly black cats for breakfast on toast with vegemite? I mean, you only live once. — TimeLine
I think it is hard to defend the claim that anyone ought to do anything whether or not they can do it. — Andrew4Handel
I think the logical thing for meat eaters to do is eat less meat — Bitter Crank
I was simply indicating that I knew, on a first hand basis, what it meant to kill a food animal. — Bitter Crank
But it probably won't be based on the rights of animals, or their needs. — Bitter Crank
You haven't given any good arguments so far for that claim. — NKBJ
Raising animals for food is environmentally unsustainable. — Bitter Crank
Your experiences with killing and your dietary habits don't add much to the question at hand. Talking about them just makes it harder to address the issue objectively. — NKBJ
I haven't seen you directly address their moral status so far, but you do seem to insist they don't matter--on what basis other than you personally didn't feel qualms about killing them? — NKBJ
Deer, in the upper midwest at least, have reached large populations and have become foraging pests with refined tastes -- leaving aside corn for garden flowers, vegetables, and plants in hanging pots. They'll stand up on their hind legs and clear cut a $50 planter hanging from the eves--and this is in small cities, not out in the country. Food is so abundant for them that they have become gourmets - preferring potted impatiens to dandelions.
City rabbits breed like rabbits, and are clearly over-populated, with large die-offs in the fall. Ditto for squirrels.
I happen to like all these animals--raccoons, rabbits, squirrels, elephants, ants, whales, grasshoppers, bees, baboons, bonobos, birds, bats, and bison. With adequate natural predation (hawks, owls, eagles, snakes, bats, wolves, fox, etc.) the small gnawing biting stinging little animals are kept in balance. The megafauna like elephants, rhinoceros, hippos, wildebeests, zebras, lions, tigers, etc. are central to African ecology. Whales are critical for ocean ecology, as are all the other creatures in the oceans. — Bitter Crank
Groundwork…every rational being, exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will…Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature have, nevertheless, if they are not rational beings, only a relative value as means and are therefore called things. On the other hand, rational beings are called persons inasmuch as their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves.
So that if we were carnivores then there could be no moral issue which seems to be quite an arbitrary point at which to invoke ethics. — Andrew4Handel
your'e welcome. — Sid
The fact that you are actually able to debate what kind of protein you want to consume says that me and my trigger pulling ancestors did something right — Sid
if we needed to eat meat in order to survive, then, strictly speaking, it would still be possible, with enough determination, to refrain from eating meat. It would just lead to a horrible death — Sapientia
It would still be a moral issue, although the conclusion would be different. — BlueBanana
In what way?
I am beginning to think that making something a moral issue is always arbitrary because hypothetically we could try and make everything a moral issue. — Andrew4Handel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.