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.
Humans are mammals. Other mammals kill each other and have since crawling out of the ocean. Ethics and morals have nothing to do with killing each other.
Does this logic hold up to you? Does this seem like sound moral reasoning?
To begin with, the question posed by the OP can be defined as one which relates to either ethics or morality, or both--depending upon its broader context. Engaging in a semantic argument over two philosophical terms which are, in this particular instance, very closely related, is silly
I became a vegetarian nearly forty years ago. My reasons were ethical, and were related to both the unnecessary use of other animals as a source of food, and to the fact that many human beings on this planet don't have enough food to eat due to the diversion of resources used for the breeding of livestock.
Animal proteins are significantly less efficient than plant proteins. That is to say that for every gram of protein derived from an animal, anywhere from 4-10 grams (dependent upon the specific animal) of plant protein are required to maintain that animal. A massive portion of the world's agricultural land is being used for plant protein which is fed to livestock. If this land were used for the production of plant protein, fed directly to human beings, it would be much easier to address global hunger.
As for the suggestion that it is necessary for human beings to consume the flesh of other animals, that simply isn't true. It is entirely possible for a vegetarian, or even a vegan, to obtain all essential nutrients from a meatless diet. The most important of these nutrients is protein. The human body requires twenty-one amino acids (the component nutrients of protein). The body produces twelve of these internally, leaving nine to be externally acquired.
All animal protein, including eggs and dairy products, contain all of these amino acids. However, there are several plant-based proteins which also contain these amino acids, most notably, soybeans. Beyond that, there are several plant proteins which can be combined to provide all of these acids. Rice and beans combined is a complete protein source--one which is common in cultures worldwide.
While there are increasingly-rare instances of indigenous populations that are dependent upon animal flesh for survival, breeding and consuming other sentient life forms is a choice--not a necessity--for the overwhelming majority of the Earth's human population.
As human beings, we have one important cognitive advantage over other animals: we implicitly understand the results of our immediate actions. We are capable of recognizing the pain and suffering our actions can lead to. That's why we pass criminal and civil judgement on those of us who cause harm to other human beings. We define this relationship between cause and result as morality (or ethics). Other animals may hunt and kill. However, those actions are a function of survival instinct, not of moral choice.
Most people eat meat simply as a matter of unquestioned cultural tradition. We have decided that being the dominant land species on Earth has somehow given us the authority to exploit other animals for everything from food, to cruel entertainment. Perhaps, centuries from now, our moral evolution as a species will include a greater respect of other sentient life on this planet.
To be morally consistent you should only consume those plants which are most efficient in delivering protein and do not vary your diet among less efficient plants. Hunger is not a food production problem but a food distribution problem.
Last edited by Glenfield; 05-04-2015 at 05:55 PM..
To be morally consistent, I assume that you only consume those plants which are most efficient in delivering protein and do not vary your diet among less efficient plants. Or have you since come to understand that hunger is not a food production problem but a food distribution problem?
So according to your logic, in order for someone to be charitable they must give away all their money to the point that they are as poor as the people they were trying to help in the first place? Rogead is doing vastly more than you are to reduce waste, yet you focus on his waste? How is that logical? It is akin to discrediting someone who donated half their money to charity because they didn't donate all of it.
Those animals would serve no purpose if we didn't eat them
Most people serve just as much purpose as most animals, they eat, sleep, [MOD CUT/profanity] breed and die. They just happen to use up much more of the earths resources in the process.
Show me one indigenous tribe, current or historical, that is completely vegetarian without the influence of any sort of religion. Just one. I'll wait.
People don't eat meat because of "cultural tradition". People eat meat because our bodies were designed - by god, by nature, by evolution, by whatever higher power you believe in - to eat meat. It isn't a question of morals or ethics, it's a question of how the human species has evolved.
As to your first statement: you'll need to wait for a very long time, because I have absolutely no idea what your directive is or how it relates to anything I said, or what the connection to theological beliefs of indigenous tribes might possibly be.
To argue that our bodies were "designed" for anything whatsoever requires the participation of a designer. I'm unaware of any rational argument for such an entity.
It is absolutely true that our species evolved as meat-eaters. It is also true that our species evolved to engage in many behaviors which we have chosen to ethically reject, for example, the territorially-motivated killing of those in other "tribes" or forced-copulation. We have defined these, respectively, as murder and sexual assault. This means that most human beings have ethically evolved to hold these acts to be morally repugnant.
To be morally consistent, I assume that you only consume those plants which are most efficient in delivering protein and do not vary your diet among less efficient plants. Or have you since come to understand that hunger is not a food production problem but a food distribution problem?
I make sure that I obtain the necessary nutrients for my body. To the extent that it doesn't involve the consumption of other animals, I'm fine with nearly any available protein. The relative efficiencies of various plant proteins will always depend upon growing seasons and soil conditions, which vary both geographically and annually. However, none of these crops involve the planned-slaughter of other sentient life forms.
Hunger has many causes. At the top of the list is human greed. Raising animals for the purpose of utilizing them as a food source is but one manifestation of that greed.
Those animals would serve no purpose if we didn't eat them
Exactly!
If we didn't breed them for the express purpose of consuming them, they wouldn't exist.
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.
Humans are mammals. Other mammals kill each other and have since crawling out of the ocean. Ethics and morals have nothing to do with killing each other.