I just don’t have the patience for this kind of thing. You have been told clearly by like, 5 people. You have been retold by those same people in even greater clarity. All the data as to why you are wrong on multiple fronts has been provided, you just don’t get it. You want quotes that are examples self righteous, so you can argue with them. Self reflect. Look at your own posts, why should I do all the work for you? Ill try to point you in the right direction, but Im done here (again). — DingoJones

You seem to have the patience to criticize, but not to offer a solution and/or provide examples of the thing you claim is wrong. As I told Jake, I'll just claim you are sexist. And if other people agree with me and have told you that you're sexist, then you must be sexist, right? They don't need to provide examples of you actually being sexist, they can just point to your "overall character".

look at the way you reacted to peoples reactions to your comparison of yourself to Martin Luthar King jr. Do not think about why you were correct in the comparison, think about why people reacted the way they did (I laughed out loud). — DingoJones

"People", meaning one other person? Not to mention, I never said I was the exact equivalent to Martin Luther King Jr. I was making a comparison between what we are standing up for, which is injustice.

Racism: prejudice against another because of a physical attribute (skin type).
Sexism: prejudice against another because of a physical attribute (sex type).
Speciesism: prejudice against another because of a physical attribute (species type)

As far as your criticism, I'll dismiss yours and jake's for now, since neither of you actually care to improve the quality of this thread, but rather blindly criticize because you don't like the way someone discusses things. Followed by, not showing an example to help and not offering a solution to fix the 'alleged' problem. When called out to show evidence for your claims, you resort to deflective behavior. "I don't have the time." - "I'm not going to do the work for you, do it yourself."

I'll stop responding to you and Jake from this point on.

I'll respond to you in a little bit. I got side-tracked with forum psychologists who want to criticize the alleged virtue signaler.

You seem to have the patience to criticize, but not to offer a solution and/or provide examples of the thing you claim is wrong. — chatterbears

I could, we all could, probably provide many examples of a more effective persuasion strategy for helping animals, and you could figure it out on your own, but all you want to talk about is yourself.

I was making a comparison between what we are standing up for, which is injustice. — chatterbears

If you were standing up for injustice, you'd be interested in the most effective ways to do that. As best I can tell, we're on page 14 and you've expressed little to no interest in such an investigation. You want to have an ethical conversation, with you being the moral authority. Everything else is discarded.

You want to have an ethical conversation, with you being the moral authority. Everything else is discarded. — Jake

Chatterbears nailed.

Here's how to back up your claims: Provide evidence. — chatterbears

Do you seriously not get that you've been moral posturing throughout this entire thread? Please look at the title you chose for the thread. It's not about animals. It's about us. Your judgment of us.

Chatterbears nailed. — Bitter Crank

Nah, Jake nailed. Surely I should find something more interesting and useful to do. Sadly, my ego is a sucker for shooting fish in a barrel operations. Pathetic, but there you have it.

My own needs are, to me, more important than your needs, even though were both human. Insofar as your human form allows you to reciprocate my behavior toward you (and insofar as that allows us to cooperate), I elevate my consideration of other humans above my consideration of lesser creatures for practical reasons. — VagabondSpectre

So to be clear, would you be fine killing mentally disabled people for food, since they cannot reciprocate your behavior (insofar as that allows you both to cooperate) in a practical way? If your answer is no, then the ability to reciprocate the behavior is not the reason you value humans as higher.

The fact is, if you're willing to kill and eat another animal, even if it is the only way to survive, then you've valued your own needs above the needs of the other. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, but we are not in a survival situation as of this point, so that doesn't apply to this discussion. I wanted to know why you are putting "higher importance" on the needs of humans, but not on the needs of non-human animals (such as pigs, goats, sheep, cows, chickens, etc...)?


Surely there is some property in which you are making a distinction between humans and non-human animals. What is that distinction, in which allows humans to live free from torture and/or slaughter, but not non-human animals? — chatterbears

Intelligence. Basically, farm animals are too stupid and ill-equipped to be the masters of their own lives. In fact, unless humans rear and slaughter them on a continuing basis then they cannot live at all, let alone free of suffering; we need their meat to pay for their existence and they're incapable of surviving on their own, therefore it's impossible for them to live without slaughter. The fact that we cannot make moral agreements with animals (they're stupid) often pits us against them, where it's either our suffering or theirs. — VagabondSpectre

So you have given me two justifications as of right now. 1st reciprocation of behavior. 2nd, intelligence level. As stated above with the reciprocation scenario, I will do the same with intelligence. Are you ok slaughtering humans who are of lower intelligence (such as severely mentally disabled people)?

Why do you keep inflicting random digital refuse upon me without lifting a single finger to actually cite the material? (your method of link pasting is not an adequate form of citation, and none of these links adequately or directly address the claim I made) .....None of the articles you "cited" are scientific. One of them might have been peer reviewed, but a list of potentially misleading statistics in a publication for family physicians isn't exactly "scientific". It reads like an editorial... — VagabondSpectre

To respond to everything you wrote about the articles I sent you, I will stop sending you those for now and do further research to find you something more adequate for you. For now, we can stick to the moral arguments.

No you didn't, unless I missed it. Was it, the slaughter of animals allows humans to thrive? Why should we thrive off the suffering/torture/slaughter of another species? Because we have the power to do so? — chatterbears

Yes, the slaughter of animals contributes the the ability of humans to thrive. That's a difference between rape/torture and the slaughter and consumption of animals. — VagabondSpectre

Right now, we are currently in a over-population crisis. For us to thrive, we would need to stop growing as rapidly as we have been. Killing humans off, to lessen the population, would contribute to the ability of humans to thrive. Would you therefore claim that, if something contributes to the ability of humans to thrive, therefore it is good for humans to put into action? Humans are the cause of so much pollution and massive contribution to climate change. Killing us off (to lessen the population) would actually be better for us in the long run, as well as help restore the health of the earth and our living conditions.

Who do you mean by "we"? I know you don't mean all humans because as I've already established without contest, all humans living traditional lifestyles do need to consume meat, and second and third world countries rely on meat and animal products for their food security, so are you only talking about first world countries? — VagabondSpectre

Do you have any research on this? The cheapest ingredients in the world are plant-based. Rice, beans, pasta, fruits, vegetables, etc... To say you have established this fact without contest, is incorrect. I know many countries do rely on animal products to survive, but would you say most countries? I don't think so.

Why are you comparing raising farm animals to the holocaust? If we're being technical, the one advocating an animal holocaust is you. You could have taken the position that factory farming should not be permitted, and we would have agreed, but instead you had to take the position that to raise and then slaughter a farm animal, regardless of how well that animal was treated when it was alive, should not be permitted. By doing so, you've essentially made the statement that the life of any and every farm animal is not worth living, and you propose a final solution in the form of genocide. — VagabondSpectre

Holocaust survivors have compared factory farming to the jewish holocaust. See here: https://youtu.be/f7dZv43A0g0

Although the treatment of an animal is important, it is even more important to allow them to live when they do not want to die. You'd agree the same goes for humans. You would object to someone killing their 17 year old son or daughter, even if they told you, "But my child was treated amazingly, right before I killed them."

Lastly, the current life of farm animals is not worth living, since they suffer more than they experience pleasure, by a large margin. It wouldn't be considered a genocide to stop raping (force impregnating) cows. Once the mother cows stop being raped, they will stop producing babies. That isn't a genocide, that is a compassion release of a species that we currently have dominion over. We could keep some number of each species (cows, chickens, pigs, etc...) in animal sanctuaries.

It's funny you should mention dogs. You say "holocaust for dogs" but what you meant to say was "is it O.K for us to exploit dogs?", and the answer is yes, because we already do, and have done for thousands of years. But it's not entirely a one-sided relationship; we've used dogs for hunting and protection and companionship for so long that they have evolved into man's best friend. While they protect us from other beasts, we also protect them from injury, disease, starvation, and more. Would I be O.K with farming dogs for meat? It depends on the farm, but I would deem it foolish given how skinny they are. — VagabondSpectre

As you already stated, we have domesticated dogs as pets because it is a mutual friendship. They protect us and we protect them. We don't rape them or make them live in their own feces. We don't cage them up and don't allow them to see sunlight. We don't kill them 1-2 years into their life because we have no use for them anymore. We don't mutilate them without anesthetic. We don't neglect their medical needs and slit their throats prematurely.

I keep to my original question. Would you be ok with a holocaust for dogs? And since they are skinnier, maybe we would need a larger holocaust than our current one we have for other animals. Would you be fine with that?

Would I be O.K with farming severely mentally disable humans for meat? At the outset, I just want to say that this would never be efficient from a thermodynamic perspective (instead of feeding the human-livestock, just feed the human directly) but in some kind of fun-house reality where farming severely mentally disabled people is extremely profitable, I might not actually object. — VagabondSpectre

So you care more about profit than the lives of sentient beings, just to be clear? Especially if it was your child or someone related to you. You'd be okay with giving the mentally-disabled agriculture industry your family member, so they could exploit, torture and kill them for profit?

If you recall, my position is that the justifiability of human meat consumption in general (and in individual cases) exists on a spectrum determined by the severity of need. If it was required for our survival that we farm severely mentally disabled human livestock, how could you or I then object? As our ability to satisfy our spectrum of needs without exploitation grows, so to do out moral obligations to refrain from exploitation, in those respects. — VagabondSpectre

In the same way that animal factory farming isn't required for our survival right now, severely mentally disabled human factory farming wouldn't be required for our survival. I am asking you to swap factory farmed animals with mentally disabled humans. We would treat them exactly the same. We would rape them (force impregnate) with other sperm to ensure another mentally disabled human is born. We would even milk them, and pump more hormones into them to increase milk production. We drink the milk of another species, yet people are grossed out by human breast milk? (lol?)

No matter how many false moral equivalences you draw between animal farming and {insert random atrocity here}, you'll not out-run the thermodynamic bill that must be paid if we are to continue existing. — VagabondSpectre

You can call them false moral equivalences, but they aren't. You think it is an atrocity when a human is involved, but not an animal, or so it seems. The thermodynamic bill will be there regardless of our action, but should we not choose the best action for ourselves and others around us?

If they have adequate land for animal agriculture, they should have adequate land for plant agriculture. It would be the same as me asking you, "Do you think it is moral for growing or developing countries to consume human flesh if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan?" — chatterbears

Ahh, see, that's something that someone who knows absolutely nothing about agriculture would say, and also perhaps someone who has not been reading my posts (not just in this thread). — VagabondSpectre

I have been reading your posts, and whether or not I know enough about agriculture is irrelevant. I understand that some crops cannot grow on some types of land, but we could definitely settle this type of thing with time. What I was asking you is something different, which was, Do you think it is moral for growing or developing countries to consume human flesh if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan?" - You didn't address or answer this question.

P.S Are you saying that human cannibalism is worse than non-human animal consumption? — VagabondSpectre

I am not saying one is worse than the other, as they are both immoral. The only time they 'may' become morally acceptable is within a survival situation. But even then, I may still find it immoral to take the life of a human (or non-human animal), to fulfill your own selfish needs. As stated, it may be more understandable and justifiable, but I would still find it immoral on some level.

Why can’t you apply the same rule of non-contradiction to ethics to form similar basis? I understand this would not resemble conventional ethics, — DingoJones

What would it have to do with ethics at all?

What you are referring to is either the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity. — chatterbears

I'm not referring to laws/principles. I just explained that to you.

So to be clear, would you be fine killing mentally disabled people for food, since they cannot reciprocate your behavior (insofar as that allows you both to cooperate) in a practical way? If your answer is no, then the ability to reciprocate the behavior is not the reason you value humans as higher. — chatterbears

If our survival and continued existence was dependent on slaughtering the mentally handicapped then it would not be immoral to slaughter them. And I don't exactly need to give you some kind of objective rule that explains why I extend more moral consideration to (even handicapped) humans more than I do to animals; handicapped humans have willing guardians who can actually make moral agreements and it's not as if there is some kind of gain to be had from devaluing or slaughtering them.

So you have given me two justifications as of right now. 1st reciprocation of behavior. 2nd, intelligence level. As stated above with the reciprocation scenario, I will do the same with intelligence. Are you ok slaughtering humans who are of lower intelligence (such as severely mentally disabled people)? — chatterbears

You should know my position by now dude: unless we're getting something important out of a harmful action (like sustenance or the ability to thrive), then causing harm is immoral. When it comes to extending the same moral consideration to others that I extend to myself, I do that with intelligent humans and not dumb animals for practical reasons.

Right now, we are currently in a over-population crisis. — chatterbears

Actually we're quickly approaching an underpopulation crisis. Countries like China, Japan, and even Europe and N.A are heading toward birth rates that are less than the required replacement rate

Killing humans off, to lessen the population, would contribute to the ability of humans to thrive. — chatterbears

Killing off humans would be the opposite of humans thriving. It's possible that one group of humans could attack and kill another in an attempt to thrive exclusively, but it's also possible that group of humans could retaliate (making cooperation wholly more attractive).

When two human groups are fundamentally at odds though, war and slaughter happens, just as you say.

Would you therefore claim that, if something contributes to the ability of humans to thrive, therefore it is good for humans to put into action? — chatterbears

It's a matter degrees (of need and of harm). If something is absolutely required for human survival (let alone to thrive, which is slightly different yet still fundamentally important), then that something cannot be forbade by a moral system which actually permits humans to survive or thrive; anything less and the moral system will break down when survival demands give way to conflict.

Let me give an example: let's say I agree with you that some humans should be slaughtered to make way for other humans, but that I think you should be the first human slaughtered. What's your response?

You see, if your own moral system does not serve you, how can you expect to continue wielding it (especially without some tricky afterlife or other superstitious concept)?

I'll rephrase a concise answer to your above question: The more something is necessary for human survival and ability to thrive, the more justifiable it is against the harm that said something might entail.

This resembles how we execute moral judgments in practice: we tolerate "harm" if we deem it necessary toward the preservation of some greater good (often health and safety). Put simply, our circumstances can mitigate our guilt or even condone harm (when we lack alternative options) just as much as they can condemn us. Human meat consumption isn't a single monolithic act; it is a legion of different acts being carried out for sometimes drastically different reasons (sometimes justifiable, sometimes not).

Do you have any research on this? The cheapest ingredients in the world are plant-based. Rice, beans, pasta, fruits, vegetables, etc... To say you have established this fact without contest, is incorrect. I know many countries do rely on animal products to survive, but would you say most countries? I don't think so. — chatterbears

We had a very long series of exchanges in an older threat where I delved fairly deeply into the complex industry of agriculture (with ample sources), and I've been mentioning existing limitations that should give you common sense reasons to reconsider:

Cheap ingredients tend to be less nutritious ingredients; they're less difficult to farm because they absorb less nutrients from soil and require less heat/water/sunlight to manufacture their products. The cheapest ingredient of all, being field corn, is one of the main culprits of America's obesity, and is something humans could avoid eating entirely. Beans are a great plant, but we can only eat so much volume (beans also leave nutritional gaps which meat consumption does not, and those nutritional gaps need to be recuperated somewhere), and beans don't grow as easily as field corn. Going up the list, these plants get more expensive and require better soil quality and more fertilizer for sustainably significant yields. Fruits and vegetables simply will not grow properly in low quality soil where field corn or other very robust field crops grow. Furthermore, without cow shit, we will lose our only renewable source of fertilizer.

For anything but a first world country, (one which has an FDA like body capable of regulating a scientifically sound meat free diet, along with the necessary supplements that every person will need to consume) it would simply be unfeasible or too expensive to make a national switch. Any farm which grazes livestock on rough forage being shut down would wind up costing money or food security.

It's possible that a North American country could make the switch; farms would need to be incorporated into state ownership so that they can all be told exactly what to grow (to avoid national nutrition deficits resulting from no long term planning) and we would need massively expanded healthcare/welfare states, but we could do it. Though, at what cost? If we need to defund other important services like schools or roads, at what point might the cost become too great?

The reason I would say most countries depend on animal products for their security is because there are too many ways in which animal products are intricately linked into the rest of human life (not just food, but manure for plant based food, and dozens of other useful byproducts that have hundreds of applications). At some point, perhaps in the near future, we will have the technology and know-how to embrace alternatives as whole nations, but as yet there is still some risk. Since the challenges for even a first world nation to divert completely from animal farming are staggering, I can only see it as totally unfeasible for most of the rest of the world.

Holocaust survivors have compared factory farming to the jewish holocaust. See here: https://youtu.be/f7dZv43A0g0 — chatterbears

And what if Holocaust survivors jumped off a bridge?

I keep to my original question. Would you be ok with a holocaust for dogs? And since they are skinnier, maybe we would need a larger holocaust than our current one we have for other animals. Would you be fine with that? — chatterbears

I've already answered this, but here it is again: if it is necessary for our survival or security (security comes in degrees), then yes, it is justifiable.

o you care more about profit than the lives of sentient beings, just to be clear? Especially if it was your child or someone related to you. You'd be okay with giving the mentally-disabled agriculture industry your family member, so they could exploit, torture and kill them for profit? — chatterbears

When did I say that? Again: if something is necessary for survival, then it is not unjustifiable.

In the same way that animal factory farming isn't required for our survival right now, severely mentally disabled human factory farming wouldn't be required for our survival. — chatterbears

Why the hell are you talking about factory farming? For a vegan you sure love constantly mutilating that dead horse of yours.

You can call them false moral equivalences, but they aren't. — chatterbears

Comparing ethical animal rearing and human slaughter (thermodynamically necessary to have paid for the animal's life in the first place) to rape, molestation, cannibalism, Hitler, murder, and any other random atrocity you think of is terribly unpersuasive. At least choose an analogy that has some surface similarities with traditional animal farming if you're going to continue doing so.

The thermodynamic bill will be there regardless of our action, but should we not choose the best action for ourselves and others around us? — chatterbears

This is a great question, and answering it is the entire game of morality. What's actually best? How many of us can we morally consider? What happens when our happiness, suffering, or survival are mutually exclusive with that of another?

Can the gazelle extend moral consideration toward the lion, or vice versa? Ought they? Can we extend moral consideration to every other form of life by choosing to ourselves decline or even cease existing such as the anti-natalists argue?? Should we?

I have been reading your posts, and whether or not I know enough about agriculture is irrelevant — chatterbears

It might not be immediately relevant, but if you don't know much about agriculture you should consider that you might be wrong about the immediate feasibility of animal free agriculture. It's vastly complex; not just sticking seeds in the ground.

Do you think it is moral for growing or developing countries to consume human flesh if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan?" - You didn't address or answer this question. — chatterbears

That's an irrelevant question, but I'll answer it: no. Eating humans is not a thermodynamically sustainable solution, and if human livestock can be sustained, then the main population could just be directly sustained instead, for a profit.

If you want to ask "if cannibalism is necessary for survival, is it O.K to do it?" then the answer is yes.

I am not saying one is worse than the other, as they are both immoral. — chatterbears

Is stealing a chocolate bar as bad as murdering ten innocent people? Both are immoral, yet one feels more grave than the other...

he only time they 'may' become morally acceptable is within a survival situation. — chatterbears

Survival isn't cut and dried. Security (required for long term survival) comes in shades of grey, and what's the point of endless survival if we aren't permitted to thrive? Thrival also happens to come in degrees, along with the costs thereof.

What would it have to do with ethics at all? — Terrapin Station

...because it would be operating under the same “facts” (cannot be itself and not itself) that you yourself have called objective. Your turn.
Why couldnt an ethic based on that “fact” be considered objective in the same sense?

Do you think it is moral for growing or developing countries to consume human flesh if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan? — chatterbears

Please explain to us why morality should be our all important concern when it comes to enhancing the welfare of animals.

As example, my wife has raised and released at least 1,000+ orphaned animals without ever once making any kind of moral statement regarding what anybody else should or shouldn't do.

As example, factory non-animal sourced meat simulation products would give meat eaters exactly the taste they seek without harming animals, and if the price is right, morality need not have anything at all to do with it.

Please explain to readers why you show no interest at all in these kind of animal service activities, and all you want to talk about are moral equations, moral equations, moral equations, moral equations, moral equations, endlessly ad nauseam. We already know the answer to this, and are wondering if you're capable of ever figuring it out.

Please explain why we should believe that lecturing people about their morality is the most effective way to change human behaviors which have been routine for hundreds of thousands of years.

Please explain why you simply don't get that doing the fantasy superiority morality dance will convert a few people, while alienating ten times that many. Fun for the holier than thou moralizer, bad news for animals.

Morality has a very limited effect on any of this. Everyone involved, people and animals, are going to do whatever they perceive to be in their own self interest, and the name of the game is to align those interests so that they conflict to the least degree possible.

...because it would be operating under the same “facts” (cannot be itself and not itself) that you yourself have called objective. Your turn. — DingoJones

The particular objective relation that a thing is itself, and can't be not itself at the same time, has nothing to do with ethics, though. Ethics is about the acceptability of interpersonal behavior. If there were objective relations that somehow amounted to whether any interpersonal behavior was acceptable or unacceptable (permissible, impermissible, obligatory, etc.) then sure, it could be similar, but there are no objective relations of that sort to base ethics on.

So I'm asking you to explain how the idea you're proposing makes any sense to you, because it seems like you're asking why ethics couldn't be based on something that has nothing particularly to do with ethics. I'm not trying to be antagonistic in asking you. I'm trying to get you to better or in far more detail explain to me what you're thinking, just how you're thinking it might work, because it seems like a nonsensical question to me--like if you were asking why oil painting technique couldn't be based on combustion, say.

But the two products don't have exactly the same taste. Some come closer than others, or taste good enough for me. But I found at least one such product to have only a slight resemblance in taste to lamb or beef or whatever meat it was supposed to resemble, and it tasted gross to me. It was obvious to me that it was composed from some kind of herb, and that's what it mostly tasted like. So, hypothetically, sure. But in reality, no, not yet anyway.

The particular objective relation that a thing is itself, and can't be not itself at the same time, has nothing to do with ethics, though. Ethics is about the acceptability of interpersonal behavior. If there were objective relations that somehow amounted to whether any interpersonal behavior was acceptable or unacceptable (permissible, impermissible, obligatory, etc.) then sure, it could be similar, but there are no objective relations of that sort to base ethics on. — Terrapin Station

You are working backwards from your conclusions about ethics to dismiss the relevance of something thats foundational to almost any conclusions that can be drawn about almost anything. Starting with the simple, basic “fact” or rule or axiom (whatever you want to call it) that it doesnt make sense for something to be itself and not itself is the basis for a great many things. Im asking you to tell me why ethics must be excluded from the great many things that the “fact”, rule or axiom is applied to.
Its like you are using a rope to climb onto a rooftop. Ok, fair enough, but the versatility of a rope is such that you can also use it to swing from one rooftop to another, or tie someone up, or as a tightrope to get accross a pit...to which your response is “that doesnt make sense, ropes are for climbing onto rooftops” and im saying “yes they are but why couldnt they also be used to hang a tire swing from a tree branch?”

You are working backwards from your conclusions about ethics to dismiss the relevance of something thats foundational to almost any conclusions that can be drawn about almost anything. Starting with the simple, basic “fact” or rule or axiom (whatever you want to call it) that it doesnt make sense for something to be itself and not itself is the basis for a great many things. Im asking you to tell me why ethics must be excluded from the great many things that the “fact”, rule or axiom is applied to.
Its like you are using a rope to climb onto a rooftop. Ok, fair enough, but the versatility of a rope is such that you can also use it to swing from one rooftop to another, or tie someone up, or as a tightrope to get accross a pit...to which your response is “that doesnt make sense, ropes are for climbing onto rooftops” and im saying “yes they are but why couldnt they also be used to hang a tire swing from a tree branch?” — DingoJones

From that perspective, every fact has to do with everything, no?

No, we are talking about a specific kind of “fact”.

What specific kind and what would the limitation be?

Already explained. Do you intend to actually answer any questions or just answer them with questions?

We eat meat so we should eat meat? — TheMadFool

I don't know anyone that eats only meat. But personally I eat meat because I enjoy it. If that is immoral then I am screwed and will not go to heaven for my sins.

I guess we can say that as of now it's necessary for us to eat meat; therefore, without a choice eating meat shouldn't be a moral issue. — TheMadFool

There you go, you are getting the idea now.

What about the future, for example if we can develop synthetic meat? This provides a more ethical option and at that point in time we should stop killing animals for meat. — TheMadFool

The stopped using horses when cars became cheaper, the stopped burning coal and wood then other methods became cheaper, they stopped making clothes at home when the shops sold them cheaper so I guess that the same principle would apply.

Another thing is the proportion of meat that should be in our diets. According to dietary recommendations meat should be, say, x% of our daily diet. Are we following these dietary recommendations or is our consumption in excess. If it is the latter then eating meat in excess would be immoral because we would be exceeding our daily meat recommendations. Right? — TheMadFool

It is not about the amount of meat we eat but the contents of the meat that we need and the body's ability to absorb them. Anything in excess is usually immoral, but who is going to figure out what each person needs. I had a girl friend a long time ago that would eat a whole giant pizza almost every day as a snack, usually late at night. She never put on any extra weight because she burned so much energy at work and in sports. Her twin brother would look at a slice once a week and get fatter.
Now those fat slobs that sit around and do nothing but eat would probably still get fat on a vegetarian diet and still be immoral.

But the two products don't have exactly the same taste. — S

Yes, we aren't there yet, agreed. That's why I was interested in meat grown in a lab, it will literally be actual meat, but no animals involved in the production. So far it appears that is technically possible, but still too expensive to be a practical alternative. If they can get the price way down to where it's cheaper than meat from animals, that's the end of this moral holy war, imho.

No [one] has been able to prove that you can survive properly as a vegan. If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet[, then] where do you think [that that] would get them? — Sir2u

The truth of your first statement hinges on your definition of "proper" survival. And your following question appeals to a highly controversial notion about how we were "supposed" to be "by nature".

Our brains are as much a part of our physiology as our stomachs. And our brains, much more significantly than our stomachs, were a factor in how we got to where we are today, with all of the opportunities that technological development has brought about, and our capacity to make intelligent lifestyle choices which no other known organism can make. Your notion of "proper" survival seems to be based on a mixture of value judgements about what kind of lifestyles are good and bad, and judgements based on very selective information about human physiology which lead you down the wrong path. Were humans, "by nature", supposed to be driving around in Peugeots? Is it immoral for us to be driving around in Peugeots? If humans were supposed to be driving around in Peugeots, then why do we have legs? That this kind of reasoning is fallacious should be clear.

I don't believe in teleology, but I do believe in evolution, and, quite remarkably, the basis for us getting to the stage that we're now at was present within our ancestors as a result of evolution.

This can be discerned through a study of human development from our early days to present times. If you want to know more, I recommend the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari.

The bottom line: we don't need to eat meat or consume any animal products. As a conditional necessity, say, for a goal about living an idealistic healthy lifestyle, then sure, but that's a choice.

Another thing is the proportion of meat that should be in our diets. According to dietary recommendations meat should be, say, x% of our daily diet. Are we following these dietary recommendations or is our consumption in excess. If it is the latter then eating meat in excess would be immoral because we would be exceeding our daily meat recommendations. Right? — TheMadFool

Wrong. That something is against dietary recommendations does not mean that it is immoral.

It is not about the amount of meat we eat but the contents of the meat that we need and the body's ability to absorb them. Anything in excess is usually immoral, but who is going to figure out what each person needs. I had a girl friend a long time ago that would eat a whole giant pizza almost every day as a snack, usually late at night. She never put on any extra weight because she burned so much energy at work and in sports. Her twin brother would look at a slice once a week and get fatter.
Now those fat slobs that sit around and do nothing but eat would probably still get fat on a vegetarian diet and still be immoral. — Sir2u

These kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral, not eating in excess.

Wrong. That something is against dietary recommendations does not mean that it is immoral. — S

Why?

If it's necessary and, hence, recommended for me to eat 300 gm of meat everyday then I have to to stay survive. That means eating more than 300 gm of meat in a day would be a choice I have. Since opting to eat more than is necessary for survival would entail the killing of more animals it would be immoral for me to do that as the killings were not necessary.

I find this reasoning sound. We don't say lions are immoral for they kill only to survive. However, the sport of hunting is immoral because it isn't necessary for survival.

Why?

If it's necessary and, hence, recommended for me to eat 300 gm of meat everyday then I have to to stay survive. That means eating more than 300 gm of meat in a day would be a choice I have. Since opting to eat more than is necessary for survival would entail the killing of more animals it would be immoral for me to do that as the killings were not necessary.

I find this reasoning sound. We don't say lions are immoral for they kill only to survive. However, the sport of hunting is immoral because it isn't necessary for survival. — TheMadFool

Your argument relies on the assumption that your premise positing a necessity is true. However, it isn't a simple necessity for us to eat 300gm of meat everyday. Nor is it necessary for us to do so in order to live a healthy enough lifestyle. It would only be "necessary" for someone, if, for example, they're a health freak with a fixation on achieving the ideal healthy lifestyle, and they're stuck on the notion that achieving that requires eating 300gm of meat everyday. But even then, that's not strictly necessary. Maybe instead, what's necessary for them is counseling.

And we are very, very different from lions. Unlike lions, we don't need to hunt for survival. Those days are long gone.

Where are you getting these ideas from?

Already explained. — DingoJones

Obviously I didn't catch what was supposed to answer that question then. Whatever you took to answer it must not have seemed like an answer to it to me. Are you attempting to communicate with me so that I understand an idea I didn't previously or are you trying to just be disputatious and antagonistic?

Your argument relies on the assumption that your premise positing a necessity is true. — S

Well, let me ask you:

Imagine four people A, B, C and D

1. A had no choice (it was necessary) in killing C

2. B had a choice not to kill D but did so anyway

What is your moral evaluation of persons A and B?

In what world does that example have anything to do with overeating. I think that’s a false analogy.

Now I think I know where your going with this. It is my understanding that humans are considered animals by biologists. We are animals at the top of the food chain. Thus, it is not immoral to eat animals, however much.