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.
I think meat eaters get worked up for the same reason anyone gets worked up when facing phony nonsensical irrational emotional arguments based in mysticism and silliness.
Provide a logical argument for the ethics of eating meat then. I have still yet to see one that doesn't rely on fallacies or is completely hedonistic in nature.
Provide a logical argument for the ethics of eating meat then. I have still yet to see one that doesn't rely on fallacies or is completely hedonistic in nature.
Ethics is the branch of philosophy that addresses human relationships in a social context. It has nothing to do with animals, and does not apply to animals.
Thus there is no ethical implication to eating meat, it's a non-sequitur.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-03-2015 at 03:45 PM..
Reason: Removed colored font
Ethics is the branch of philosophy that addresses human relationships in a social context. It has nothing to do with animals, and does not apply to animals.
Thus there is no ethical implication to eating meat, it's a non-sequitur.
I have taken classes on ethics. We covered topics outside of the realm of human interactions. Mainly ethical philosophers, Peter Singer for example, cover ethics related to non humans.
Quote by Mahatma Gandhi: "The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress, can be judged by the way it's animals are treated."
A quote Mahatma Gandi.
FBI " Animal abuse is a crime against society".
Mahatma Gandhi is not a source of truth. Nor is a random statement by a member of the FBI. The greatness of a nation CANNOT be judged by how it treats its animals. That statement is utterly absurd. We are animals, and eating lower animals is natural, good, correct, healthy, and desirable. Some may choose to kill vegetation to ingest for nutrients. Others choose animals. No difference morally. No difference ethically. No different rationally. Nothing to consider or debate.
Unless.... one has an emotional problem and displaces it to the false protection of lower life forms. Irrational over-identification with animals is one manifestation. The other, is of course, radical environmentalism. Both are sicknesses where an individual develops a hatred for his fellow man, perhaps from envy, inadequacy, mistreatment, what have you. The illness progresses to where the affected individual becomes preoccupied, if not obsessed, with stopping others from living productively and rationally.
Animal rights and radical environmentalism are mental illnesses, nothing more, nothing less.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 04-02-2015 at 11:52 PM..
True, but none of that has anything to do with your original argument.
There are still heritage and wild species of cows, pigs, and chickens that exist completely outside of factory farming. How does the above or your original argument relate to that fact?
That was a response to the above poster who raised the concern that humans avoiding meat would lead to the extinction of the animals we eat.
If there are populations of an animal that exist in the wild, then humans deciding not to farm them anymore would not cause them to go extinct. If humans deciding not to farm an animal cause it to go extinct, then it doesn't exist in the wild anyway.
Also, "heritage" and "wild" are not the same. Even heritage breeds are the product of intentional human breeding. They are nothing like wild chickens. Pigs are the closest, but as we all know, pigs are doing just fine in the wild and would not go extinct if we stopped eating them. There are no cattle in the wild -- at least not anything near to what we eat.
Not a valid argument, unless your the meat. The pleasure derived from Eating a nice grilled Medium Well Rib eye Steak , far out weighs the negative aspects, which can not be actually measured or experienced by one, and are purely theoretical. So actually, Eating meat causes pleasure, not suffering, and there is no valid reason listed to avoid it.
I'm not sure you understand what "valid" means. "Valid" and "true" are not synonymous. A valid argument is simply one in which the premises, if true, would make the conclusion true. I can't see how my argument isn't at least valid, so long as we're considering my modified argument I posted below it.
And why do you say that the suffering of animals is only theoretical? There is actually a real, live sentient creature doing the suffering.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-03-2015 at 08:37 PM..
Reason: edited quote
I have taken classes on ethics. We covered topics outside of the realm of human interactions. Mainly ethical philosophers, Peter Singer for example, cover ethics related to non humans.
Please, stop. Don't offer up Peter Singer as a source of wisdom. He was a miserable, debauched, horrible, decrepit, utilitarian collectivist hater of mankind. An awful person. An absolute horror. An irrational enemy of Reason. A despiser of achievement and individuality. A traitor to his species and to life itself. It doesn't get much worse than Peter Singer, unless you want to descend to, say, Bertrand Russell or even lower, to Immanuel Kant or Karl Marx.
You're a breath of fresh air! It is funny how absurd some counter arguments can be. Suddenly intentional suffering isn't a big deal, plant consciousness isn't just crazy speculation and whatever happens in the wild is acceptable for humans to do. It's quite remarkable how otherwise reasonable people will resort to downright silly arguments to defend something that is a habit for them.
Suffering, schmuffering. So if we can kill the animals we want to eat instantly and without pain, you'd be good with it? No, I didn't think so. Or is it the more important issue of stopping humans because you don't like them.
Not so. Totally False. Our "Food Animals" have evolved and some have been been "enhanced" but already existed, and some species have existed before man.
Please show me an example of a cow in the wild. A real cow, not a Cape Buffalo or an American Bison. Bison exist, and a couple of our current cattle breeds were bred from Bison, but the cattle themselves are not Bison.
Cattle, modern chickens, modern turkeys and modern pigs serve no purpose in the wild. Their extinction would be no great event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris347
Animals ate other animals and evolved, like man, and still continue to eat other animals like man. Its a Natural Occurrence.
Moderator cut: against forum guidelines. I've addressed this argument multiple times. Nature doesn't come with "oughts." Just because something happens in the wild doesn't make it morally acceptable for humans to do. For example, male grizzly bears will often kill and eat grizzly cubs. Would that excuse a human male killing and eating a baby?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris347
In fact, you can not really say that "Plants" are not conscious either, even if scientific proof is not available. We just may not actually know how to recognize it. Can a plant think? Can a plant feel? Maybe. We know a plant senses sunlight, and turns to it. Or does it "feel" sunlight and turn toward it? Plants reproduce and send out seeds in may ways. Some are airborne. How does a plant know there is going to be air to carry the seeds? some stick to animals fur. How do plants know an animal is going to come by, or that there are such things as animals? Good questions, not easy to answer, because we can't talk to plants. You have any answers?
Sensing surroundings and responding is not even close to enough to claim consciousness. Bacteria do those same things.
It's clear that there's a misunderstanding of what consciousness is on this thread. Let me explain it like this: If someone were to slap me in the face, there is a being "inside" that is experiencing the slap and is undergoing the experience of pain. There is something it is like to be a person getting slapped. If you were to slap a piece of plastic, there is no being inside the plastic that is doing any experiencing. Consciousness is not merely interacting with the environment. It is far more complex than that.
Is there any way to ever know for sure that plants aren't conscious? No, that would require proving a universal negative, which is impossible. But based on the evidence we have, it's highly doubtful they are.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-03-2015 at 08:38 PM..
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.
