Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can anyone address this? Why is eating plant a morally superor choice? Plants are living creatures as well. They grow, breathe, take in nutrients, give birth (i.e. divide and produce seed), etc. Some people have done tests where plants have "reacted" to human stimuli.
Why is eating plants okay?
Plants don't "breathe" as they don't have a central nervous system or lungs for that matter. It's pretty obvious why plants and animals are different, as humans are animals and pretty much everyone abhors the idea of humans eating humans.
I understand the motivation for this question (I kill, butcher and store the preponderance of my animal foods myself), but I think it's fairly objective that vegetative life doesn't have a capacity to suffer like more sophisticated fauna with central nervous systems. I still disagree that eating a plant is morally superior or that the lack of a strict need for an omnivorous diet somehow obligates me or anyone else to avoid eating meat, dairy, eggs or fish.
I hear you. Then the real issue is that of "suffering?" Is there any acceptable way to slaughter an animal that would be considered "suffering free?" If you watch animals like lions, they go for a quick shot to the jugular.
Should we "anesthetize" the animal first? Would that work?
Why do most people have no problem eating cows, but get repulsed by the thought of eating horse or dog? And what makes cats so special that they can't appear on our dinner plates? And why do some vegetarians eat fish? Are fish not animals? I understand the people who eat no meat, by why do those who do eat meat feel that some animals are ok to eat and others are not?
Some taste better than others. Cow tastes better than rabbit or duck. Chicken tastes better than elk or moose. Ostrich tastes better than alligator. Frog tastes better than shark.
Plants don't "breathe" as they don't have a central nervous system or lungs for that matter. It's pretty obvious why plants and animals are different, as humans are animals and pretty much everyone abhors the idea of humans eating humans.
Plants don't "breathe" as they don't have a central nervous system or lungs for that matter. It's pretty obvious why plants and animals are different, as humans are animals and pretty much everyone abhors the idea of humans eating humans.
Perhaps "breathe" isn't the most accurate word. However, they do engage in respiration. They "breathe" out oxygen and "breathe" in CO2 and other gases.
To your other point, I think it's safe to say that most animlas will not eat a member of it's own species. That's why humans don't eat humans. Lions don't eat lions but will eat a zebra.
I hear you. Then the real issue is that of "suffering?" Is there any acceptable way to slaughter an animal that would be considered "suffering free?" If you watch animals like lions, they go for a quick shot to the jugular.
Should we "anesthetize" the animal first? Would that work?
I actually disagree that lions go for the jugular and assert that they go for the trachea. Asphyxiation is the kill mechanism rather than exsanguination. I would rather bleed out than suffocate, but that's just me.
Honestly, I think that whether bullet or arrow pierces lung, heart or major artery - that's a sufficiently quick demise to meet ethical muster and a death that is more or less objectively preferable to just about any other death by predation found in nature and at least on par with any death found in agriculture.
Here's a question: What would be the ethical difference between eating "cultured" meat that was grown as a disembodied tissue in a lab and eating a farmed vegetable?
Some taste better than others. Cow tastes better than rabbit or duck. Chicken tastes better than elk or moose. Ostrich tastes better than alligator. Frog tastes better than shark.
It's all about the flavor.
I don't know about rabbit, but I think you've been overcooking your duck. A well prepared mallard, wood duck or pintail can compete with a well prepared tenderloin.
I actually disagree that lions go for the jugular and assert that they go for the trachea. Asphyxiation is the kill mechanism rather than exsanguination. I would rather bleed out than suffocate, but that's just me.
Honestly, I think that whether bullet or arrow pierces lung, heart or major artery - that's a sufficiently quick demise to meet ethical muster and a death that is more or less objectively preferable to just about any other death by predation found in nature and at least on par with any death found in agriculture.
Here's a question: What would be the ethical difference between eating "cultured" meat that was grown as a disembodied tissue in a lab and eating a farmed vegetable?
Yeah, lions go for the throat.
I doubt you'll find anyone with ethical issues regarding cultured meat vs vegetables. I think that debate is more based on fear of the crazy science involved and lack of long term health studies.
Why do most people have no problem eating cows, but get repulsed by the thought of eating horse or dog? And what makes cats so special that they can't appear on our dinner plates? And why do some vegetarians eat fish? Are fish not animals? I understand the people who eat no meat, by why do those who do eat meat feel that some animals are ok to eat and others are not?
Um... cultural considerations? Is this really that baffling?
There's a general prohibition on eating the animal Homo sapiens. Presumably that's understandable, no? Though, to be fair, once a person is dead the body is just matter, the same as a cow or a pig or a dog. But that gets right back to the point - cultural taboos. They may not be strictly logical, but it can hardly be a surprise that they exist.
Horses, dogs, cats - again, these animals are generally companion animals. Why is it surprising that animals with which people routinely develop emotional relationships are generally proscribed from being consumed? On the other hand, cows generally exist to be eaten. It would be rather odd if an animal that exists primarily to be eaten was not eaten.
As for vegetarians eating fish, you should probably have learned by now that in English and pretty much any language), the definitions of a great many words do not comport with a literal definition of the word's constituent parts. Wikipedia's "vegetarian" can educate you. This question really has no place with your other questions, so I wonder why you bothered sticking it in there.
Um... cultural considerations? Is this really that baffling?
Horses, dogs, cats - again, these animals are generally companion animals. Why is it surprising that animals with which people routinely develop emotional relationships are generally proscribed from being consumed? On the other hand, cows generally exist to be eaten. It would be rather odd if an animal that exists primarily to be eaten was not eaten.
.
You agree to the first but then say the last ?
That would not be an acceptable statement in India.
Actually, milking cows, even in this country, do not primarily exist be to eaten.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? And what makes cats so special that they can't appear on our dinner plates? And why do some vegetarians eat fish? Are fish not animals? I understand the people who eat no meat, by why do those who do eat meat feel that some animals are ok to eat and others are not?
