Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral » Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral

Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral

Page: 1 2

Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral

Occam's Raison
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 13, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 09/17/08 - 04:36 AM:	#11
I would like to poser a question that I havent actually seen raised more than once in a meat-eating debate. If we were to stop farming animals, we would have no reason to keep them alive. If some domestic animals were not farmed they would not be able to fend for themselves. By this I mean, if we were to just shove a herd of cattle out into the street they most likely wouldn't survive very long unaided. I say the street because I can't see farmers allowing animals to graze on their valuable land without the farmers receiving any benefit. So, my question is: Given the knowledge of consequences of animal liberation is it more ethical to stop farming certain animals and allow them to be die out or to just make farming methods more humane and eat less meat (which would harm the animals less and maintain the existence of the species)? I hope I am making myself clear. I have a bad feeling I am not:P But let me know what you think.

Wissenschaften
Resident Bright

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2009
Location: Northern California

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 13

Posted 01/12/09 - 12:15 AM:	#12
Occam's Raison wrote: I would like to poser a question that I havent actually seen raised more than once in a meat-eating debate. If we were to stop farming animals, we would have no reason to keep them alive. If some domestic animals were not farmed they would not be able to fend for themselves. By this I mean, if we were to just shove a herd of cattle out into the street they most likely wouldn't survive very long unaided. I say the street because I can't see farmers allowing animals to graze on their valuable land without the farmers receiving any benefit. So, my question is: Given the knowledge of consequences of animal liberation is it more ethical to stop farming certain animals and allow them to be die out or to just make farming methods more humane and eat less meat (which would harm the animals less and maintain the existence of the species)? I hope I am making myself clear. I have a bad feeling I am not:P But let me know what you think. I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense. We have selected for those traits in cows, sheep, pigs, etc that makes them prime domesticated animals that likely could not survive without our aid. That does not mean eating them is moral or immoral, but it does add a degree of biological realism to the debate. I was somewhat disappointed to see that the debate was largely full of ad hominem and strawman assumptions, and that there was very little treatment of animals as moral agents. I am a meat eater, but I do not think the meat-eaters won this particular debate.

The Philosophizer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 16, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 19

Posted 02/23/09 - 02:13 PM:	#13
radienx000 wrote: Eventually we all cant stop eating meat, wherever we like it or not. Nature has given us a great bounty, animals are lving things, but when they're dead we can't help but feel that when we eat them it turned out that we're actually eating them, "Nooooo Bambi". But it could save a few more lives, or it can make us feel less hungry, and it gives us the nutrition we need. Whatever happens, we can't interfere with the natural cycle of nature. We all must eat meat, for our own sake. On the other hand, we do not need meat at all and we can live out with just eating carrots all of life, but theres a catch, it doesn't taste nice. But who cares if it tastes nice or not, at least it makes us feel less hungry. So does that mean that we stop eating meat? The answer is No. We can't live without meat yet we love animals and we can't bear to imagine to kill and eat that animal, so why don't just let the hunter kill "Bambi" and we can eat it? Two sides of a very arguemented case over the centuries. I guess all I can say is, do what you feel is right. This pisses me off for several reasons. Firstly, you stated that "nature has given us a great bounty". Since when was nature created solely for human use? Perhaps that is based on your own beliefs or religion, but that would have little merit in this discussion. Are you basing this on the thought that because humans are able to control nature, that it necessarily 'belongs' to them? You go on to say that eating meat could "save a few more lives, or it can make us feel less hungry, and it gives us the nutrition we need". Wow. Last time I checked meat wasn't the only thing that kept people alive, or saved any lives. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if you refer to third world countries, then it is clear you have no idea what is standardly consumed in those countries. Take an argument about hunger in India. People argued that the people were hungry because they refused to kill cows they considered sacred. The truth was, hunger was much more associated with drought and political changes and upheaval. Living cows in the country were actually many times more productive (imagine the amount of milk, butter, and cheese a cow produces over it's lifetime) compared to a dead cow (a limited amount of meat). Another void argument is that cows eat useful plants etc. that humans harvest and consume themselves. Cows have been scientifically proven (see Stewart Odend'hal's 1971 study of cows in Bengal) to be able to consume remains of harvested crops inedible to humans. In this way, the cows are taking something useless to humans and turning it into a valuable food source. What really irks me in that quote is that you say the meat gives people "the nutrition we need". I've been vegetarian my entire life since I was born, and I do not have any deficiencies in protein, one of the things people somehow think comes only from meat. Protein is in many types of beans, not to mention in all dairy products. "We must all eat meat, for our own sake". "We can't live without meat..." Speak for yourself. I'm living proof a person can live without eating meat. And what "sake" are you referring to? Perhaps you could clarify that. Eating meat may or may not change as a trend in humans over time. I accept that people wish to continue eating meat, for whatever reason. But that doesn't mean that creating a weak argument to support your beliefs should label vegetarians and vegans as needing to eat meat, or that they really should. Your arguments are based on false assumptions and unsupported arguments which seek to make meat eating an 'ok' thing to do. If people really felt that meat eating was justifiable, why would they go through the trouble of finding ways to try and justify their arguments? I guess the one thing we're all eating here is food for thought. The Philosophizer

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 02/24/09 - 10:16 AM:	#14
First of all, I do believe that "morality" is the issue. The truth is protoplasma(life) lives off protoplasma(life). Whether it is meat or veggies makes no difference. Life is life and life lives off life. Veggies are usually best fresh picked from the garden. Freshly killed for your dining pleasure. Life lives off life. It is rather a simple question and a simple answer. Now if you care to change the topic to the "moral" harvesting of meat or veggies, that is a different issue. In Switzerland, it has been proven than when you handle sugarbeets roughly during the harvest, they taste bitter. This rough handling causes an increase in stress hormones and thusly a bitter taste. Don't beat your beets is the lesson from this story. As for emotional attachments to plants or animals, this is an individual decision and opinion. Opinion(sujective)=Morals(subjective) Again a question of perspective. Glass Half full? Glass half empty? Neither!! The Glass is too big. Reality. Bon Appetit & Malzeit!! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/12/09 - 02:13 PM:	#15
Eating meat is only immoral if there is an available alternative to eating meat that doesn't cause suffering. The argument then is over what counts as an available alternative to meat. For me, there is no currently available alternative. Most vegetables are disgusting. Well, I guess I could just live off of potato chips and snickers bars... but I think I'd rather be immoral. Avoiding type II diabetes and the deliciousness of steak trumps any empathy I feel for a cow. Give me a steak that's grown in a petri dish but doesn't taste like it was and I'll be moral.

Phaedruswax
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/06/09 - 12:12 PM:	#16
I take joy in eating meat, therefore the suffering is justified.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 08/06/09 - 01:31 PM:	#17
If the eating (not the killing, treatment of animals, etc.) is a matter of morality at all, then I suppose we must try to determine from where this morality is derived. An obvious place (in regard to food and other essential needs) may be to look to what is natural and what is good (locally) for a human being. Nutritional studies suggest that it good for people to have certain nutrients in certain combinations (ie from particular sources) as part of a healthy human diet (of course these can be examined and perhaps allow the conclusions draw to be re-adapted). Among these determinations are some that suggest that it is not just the by-product that we need (calcium, potassium, carbohydrates, proteins, fats, etc.), but certain types of these things and taken together with catalysts and enzymes that are found in organic foods, but not always in man-made foods. Ancient humans used to eat bone marrow, skin, fat, organs along with fruits, nuts, berries, and herbs. The things that our bodies have adapted to consume have been part of our evolution for a long time. It may be that there is a way consume these things w/out eating animal flesh, and if that is the case and it is deemed natural for a human being to create new ways to consume the nutrients it needs w/out eating meat then it may be a moral choice to do so if there are moral reasons not to take the meat from the animal, etc. (there are ways to consume meat without killing, ie the Masai tribes with their cattle in West Africa) The other consideration is: Is what is good for a human being also what is moral? For instance, if it were deemed immoral, in some sense, to stop an asteroid from colliding with the earth and ending human life, should we stop it anyway because of the morality derived from what is good for humans? Of course there can be discussion about 'good for us as a whole' and 'good for each of us'. So, is the issue of consuming what is naturally good for us a relative issue or should it pertain to all of us because we are all of a species which naturally does better if it consumes certain things rather than others? Didn't have time to think this through, but thought it was worth spilling out...
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.