How do you morally justify eating animals? (itt the OP discovers forum discussions)

[cookie]

Plants don't have feelings, you would need a central nervous system to have feelings which animals do have but plants do not.

this is only important if the suffering of animals means anything to you. I would feel pretty bad seeing a cow get slaughtered in front of me and made into a burger, but if I don't see that shit then it doesn't bother me at all. It pisses me off that organisations like PETA try to force their ethics down everyone's throat. I don't care about the suffering of animals; caring about it is as arbitrary as being indifferent to it.

They taste good, and more importantly provide protein, which has allowed us humans to have large brains and thus become intelligent beings.

just because meat allowed us to get to where we are now doesn't make it right to still eat meat.

Humans are omnivores; we eat meat.
That's all there is too it.
People can choose to not eat meat if they want to, but people who choose to eat it shouldn't have to justify it.

the labelling of omnivore just a statement that we can eat meat. a carnivore like a cat is forced to eat meat, and herbivores don't need to. the labelling is not preceded by the action: we are called omnivores because we (sometimes/always/whatever) eat meat.

The idea of eating animals has always been of mixed review to me. I have absolutely no problem eating cows (burgers, steak, mmmmmmmmm), but then I get into things like Octopi and I have to take a step back. I'm well aware that octopi are extremely smart (not to mention cool as fuck), and I feel bad eating something with higher brain development. This just seems like another vegetarian I'm right thread, but in any case.

I must admit I feel like this too. I think it's because that because we are intelligent beings (well, most of us lol) we have a soft spot for creatures that show unexpected intelligence. I also feel it's a waste to eat an octopus when there are probably other things that taste similar but are far less interesting alive. Octopuses exhibit problem-solving skills that rival a human's, and more to the point they exhibit an intelligence that is largely alien and therefore very fascinating. Of course, cows are reasonably intelligent but we don't feel the same way because:
1. they're mammals, so we take a basic level of intelligence for granted in them, whereas an octopus would be far above the baseline intelligence we'd expect from an invertebrate
2. we're not exposed to any intelligent cow behaviour, unlike octopuses (compare the number of cool cow videos to cool octopus videos)

A vegetarian lifestyle is currently the healthiest choice anyone can make right now, but that doesn't mean eating animals is wrong.

eating excess meat is unhealthy but there's nothing wrong with the odd steak and stuff like fish are downright good for you. being vegetarian for its health benefits may as well be "cutting down on red meat"

 

[sulam]

The bible justifies it for one thing (Genesis 9).


Besides that, we need meat in order to prosper and be healthy. And we cultivate animals to eat as well, it isn't as if we're killing animals and letting their population drop (in the majority of cases).

I am a Christian, but bring the Bible into political discussion is not a valid form of arguing. Because a Janist can just say my holy book says that all forms of killing is morally wrong and then the discussion devolves into which religion is correct which is impossible to prove because the heart of all religions is some degree of faith.

If you believe the Bible is true than any moral commands contained in the Bible should be able to be proven without actually quoting from the Bible. So we can use other ways to show that is wrong to murder or to lying or steal with out saying that the Bible commands it.

 

[lilyhollow]

You can justify it by calling yourself selfish and unethical, which is ultimately what pretty much every pro-meat-eating post in this thread can be reduced to.

I love some of the desperate attempts to justify it outright, though. Like "population control," as if we aren't capable of controlling populations without mass killings (and as if we weren't largely responsible for them in the first place). "Animals do it too" totally takes the cake though, good shit guys.

I eat meat because it would be rather inconvenient for me to stop at the moment. That's kind of terrible, and pretty selfish. Hopefully I'll be dealing with that in the near future, but for now I'm going to at least have the respect to avoid flailing around in a misguided attempt to "absolve" myself of an obvious wrong.

 

[Layell]

My justification is that many of these animals would no longer exist if we didn't have a use for them (ie: eating). Since we take care of these animals their species continue to exist.

 

[frogoholic101]

I am a Christian, but bring the Bible into political discussion is not a valid form of arguing. Because a Janist can just say my holy book says that all forms of killing is morally wrong and then the discussion devolves into which religion is correct which is impossible to prove because the heart of all religions is some degree of faith.

If you believe the Bible is true than any moral commands contained in the Bible should be able to be proven without actually quoting from the Bible. So we can use other ways to show that is wrong to murder or to lying or steal with out saying that the Bible commands it.

MORALITY IS RELATIVE. I don't see how it can be proven. Equality isn't right because humans aren't equal, etc. The whole thing is subjective.

 

[Phadunk]

You can justify it by calling yourself selfish and unethical, which is ultimately what pretty much every pro-meat-eating post in this thread can be reduced to.

I love some of the desperate attempts to justify it outright, though. Like "population control," as if we aren't capable of controlling populations without mass killings (and as if we weren't largely responsible for them in the first place). "Animals do it too" totally takes the cake though, good shit guys.

I eat meat because it would be rather inconvenient for me to stop at the moment. That's kind of terrible, and pretty selfish. Hopefully I'll be dealing with that in the near future, but for now I'm going to at least have the respect to avoid flailing around in a misguided attempt to "absolve" myself of an obvious wrong.

you're fucking amazing.

 

[sulam]

Culture has a large say in morality.
Cultures change, their morality changes.
The only reason we see a problem with that is because of our current culture.

If culture has any say in morality than morality means absolutely nothing and there is no use in even discussing this.

 

[mattj]

pretty much

 

[whistle]

That is true, if you accept culture as determining morality than it would not be morally wrong. But with using culture as determining right and wrong is that that makes all change morally wrong. So it would have been morally wrong to protect a slave from being beaten to death by his owner because culturally someone with light skin was valued someone with dark skin was not. Looking back I would hope you would see the problem with that.

I'm not justifying it. but I am saying that even if it is morally wrong, the majority of the population doesn't care. since eating animals is widely accepted, most people don't feel any guilt when they eat a hamburger or a hot dog (see cookie's post). beyond legally enforced morality, the only way to stop someone from committing an action that is "morally wrong" is to make them feel guilty or shameful enough to stop it. if there's no motivation to change their behavior, people will just keep eating meat. philosophically, yeah, maybe 95%+ of the country is acting immorally... but practically, if they personally don't feel any remorse for their actions, it's almost as if their actions are "correct" and "justified".

 

[frogoholic101]

If culture has any say in morality than morality means absolutely nothing and there is no use in even discussing this.

Look, if I committed an honour killing in Britain/USA I'd be frowned upon. It would be fine in, say, Pakistan.
I.e Culture provides a morality.

 

[Atlas]

meat tastes good

The same can be said for plants.

thats purely opinion depending on the individual.

 

[FlareBlitz]

I'm not a moral vegetarian, but I am a vegetarian primarily for health reasons.

I like cookie's argument the best - meat eaters eat meat for the same reasons that you buy an iPod instead of sending that money to a third world family which can use it to eat for a year. Humans are inherently selfish and as long as they are not directly exposed to the suffering caused by their actions then they will always choose to give themselves immediate gratification every time. I don't view this as unethical, since by that metric everything we do is unethical.

Here's an interesting question though...why is torturing animals unethical if eating them isn't? If some guy gets as much pleasure from slowly skinning a live cat that you get from eating a burger, should we as a society be okay with that? I mean, if animals don't matter, what's the difference between causing them pain and just outright killing them?

 

[cookie]

If culture has any say in morality than morality means absolutely nothing and there is no use in even discussing this.

actually, morality is strongly driven by culture and society. there is no concrete set of morals: everyone's are different. whose are the better morals? that's decided by what society agrees on overall. 100 years ago homosexuality was immoral across the world, but in an increasing number of places now the opposite is true. Yes, there are some things that re-appear in societies: theft, assault, adultery and murder recur as immoral acts in societies, but these are selected through evolutionary pressures. People who thought it was okay to kill other people in their tribe would eventually get exiled and fail to pass their genes on, or imprint their values onto others.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

You can justify it by calling yourself selfish and unethical, which is ultimately what pretty much every pro-meat-eating post in this thread can be reduced to.

I love some of the desperate attempts to justify it outright, though. Like "population control," as if we aren't capable of controlling populations without mass killings (and as if we weren't largely responsible for them in the first place). "Animals do it too" totally takes the cake though, good shit guys.

I eat meat because it would be rather inconvenient for me to stop at the moment. That's kind of terrible, and pretty selfish. Hopefully I'll be dealing with that in the near future, but for now I'm going to at least have the respect to avoid flailing around in a misguided attempt to "absolve" myself of an obvious wrong.

I'm not really sure how a two-sentence reply is "flailing around"; perhaps you would like to point out what is so obviously wrong rather than just derisively dismissing the other side while providing no counterarguments.

 

[sulam]

You can justify it by calling yourself selfish and unethical, which is ultimately what pretty much every pro-meat-eating post in this thread can be reduced to.

I love some of the desperate attempts to justify it outright, though. Like "population control," as if we aren't capable of controlling populations without mass killings (and as if we weren't largely responsible for them in the first place). "Animals do it too" totally takes the cake though, good shit guys.

I eat meat because it would be rather inconvenient for me to stop at the moment. That's kind of terrible, and pretty selfish. Hopefully I'll be dealing with that in the near future, but for now I'm going to at least have the respect to avoid flailing around in a misguided attempt to "absolve" myself of an obvious wrong.

I completely agree with you and admire your honesty.

 

[frogoholic101]

I completely agree with you and admire your honesty.

You might want to look above at your 'morality'.
As you said, it means nothing, so eating animals is completely amoral.

 

[Objection]

Thank goodness for Quorn!

inb4 it tastes like shit (hint: it doesn't)

 

[J-man]

MORALITY IS RELATIVE. I don't see how it can be proven. Equality isn't right because humans aren't equal, etc. The whole thing is subjective.

Then what's the point of discussing this? So if the world went down the crapshoot and everyone decided "it's ok to take the average joe aside the street and kill him and steel all his stuff just cause i can", would that justify murder in that situation? You can't say it's wrong, because at that point in time, the most people say it's right and would become relative to do such an act.

Edit: I'm also an omnivore for reasons stated above that the Bible does not declare eating meat is evil. I do think it's downright evil to abuse animals and that we ought to take care of wildlife when it comes non-eating matters such as preserving the earth.

 

[sulam]

I'm not a moral vegetarian, but I am a vegetarian primarily for health reasons.

I like cookie's argument the best - meat eaters eat meat for the same reasons that you buy an iPod instead of sending that money to a third world family which can use it to eat for a year. Humans are inherently selfish and as long as they are not directly exposed to the suffering caused by their actions then they will always choose to give themselves immediate gratification every time. I don't view this as unethical, since by that metric everything we do is unethical.

Here's an interesting question though...why is torturing animals unethical if eating them isn't? If some guy gets as much pleasure from slowly skinning a live cat that you get from eating a burger, should we as a society be okay with that? I mean, if animals don't matter, what's the difference between causing them pain and just outright killing them?

That is the exact argument of the article I post in the link up top. Its entitled "We are all Michael Vick" and it says exactly that. Some people get pleasure from dog fight some from eating hamburgers. Its no different.

 

[popemobile]

If culture has any say in morality than morality means absolutely nothing and there is no use in even discussing this.

and it only took you 34 posts to figure out

 

[frogoholic101]

Then what's the point of discussing this? So if the world went down the crapshoot and everyone decided "it's ok to take the average joe aside the street and kill him and steel all his stuff just cause i can", would that justify murder in that situation? You can't say it's wrong, because at that point in time, the most people say it's right and would become relative to do such an act.

Answer me this; why do I have to justify it?
I can't say it is wrong, fine. It isn't in those circumstances.
The point is it destroys the concept of morality being absolute and/or something we can rely on, thus destroying the argument of 'it is unethical to eat meat'.

 

[Fishy]

You can justify it by calling yourself selfish and unethical, which is ultimately what pretty much every pro-meat-eating post in this thread can be reduced to.

I love some of the desperate attempts to justify it outright, though. Like "population control," as if we aren't capable of controlling populations without mass killings (and as if we weren't largely responsible for them in the first place). "Animals do it too" totally takes the cake though, good shit guys.

I eat meat because it would be rather inconvenient for me to stop at the moment. That's kind of terrible, and pretty selfish. Hopefully I'll be dealing with that in the near future, but for now I'm going to at least have the respect to avoid flailing around in a misguided attempt to "absolve" myself of an obvious wrong.

so basically all you managed to do this in post was bash what other people have said (classing my own loosely stated example as a desperate attempt, get off your high horse)

unless you're going to actually substantiate why it's wrong, I don't see how you think yourself to be respecting anything by just avoiding saying anything for OR against this debate, therein saving yourself any apparent embarrassment of trying to absolve your 'obvious' wrong.

if it's an obvious wrong and you scoff at other people justifying it whilst you maintain your lifestyle out of 'convenience,' you just sound like a lazy dick!

i've watched videos of rabbits being skinned alive, actually hearing their shrill (god awful) cries of pain, but this wouldn't be what stops me from wearing real fur. it's just tacky. and if I were to buy fur, that wouldn't outright mean that I endorse the raising and premeditated slaughtering of rabbits and other animals popular for their fur.

as a realist, and simply an individual, my like or dislike of animals being meaningfully or uselessly slaughtered (whatever stance you take) for human consumption isn't going to change anything. I like to eat meat, and it will continually be made available to me, so I'm going to eat it. If somehow the world flips upside down and everyone starts growing their own organic gardens and shopping at vegan grocery stores, rendering meat consumption seemingly unconventional, then I'll deal with it then. or maybe I'll just go insane and eat the morbidly obese. we'll see!

edit: yeah ramblin!!!

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

That is the exact argument of the article I post in the link up top. Its entitled "We are all Michael Vick" and it says exactly that. Some people get pleasure from dog fight some from eating hamburgers. Its no different.

You seem to be missing a major reason people eat (kind of the main reason); it's for nutrients, not pleasure. The pleasure is secondary. Yes, now there are ways to get the same nutrients from a vegetarian diet, but that may not be feasible for someone (cost, availability of supplements, etc.).

 

[sulam]

actually, morality is strongly driven by culture and society. there is no concrete set of morals: everyone's are different. whose are the better morals? that's decided by what society agrees on overall. 100 years ago homosexuality was immoral across the world, but in an increasing number of places now the opposite is true. Yes, there are some things that re-appear in societies: theft, assault, adultery and murder recur as immoral acts in societies, but these are selected through evolutionary pressures. People who thought it was okay to kill other people in their tribe would eventually get exiled and fail to pass their genes on, or imprint their values onto others.

If that is true than there is no point is having any kind of moral discussion with you because you cannot say anything is immoral. Genocide would not be immoral, female genital mutilation is not immoral, slavery would not be immoral either. So it is pointless to even discuss this. Further how do we even know what a "culture is." Is it a country? Is it just the Southern United States? Is it my neighborhood? Cultural relativism is a stupid moral theory that is rejected by most philosophers.

 

[Bynine]

Because it's readily given to me and I don't have the will power to not accept it.