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.
Eating meat doesn't cause suffering. Meat is an inanimate object, it doesn't suffer. Maybe killing the animals that eventually becomes my meat causes suffering, but I'm not killing anything when I engage in the action of the inanimate object that is meat.
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.
That couldn't be further from the truth. I have an MA in philosophy. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with what man should and should not do. It certainly encompasses animals as well as the environment.
Peter Singer, a moral philosopher at Princeton, has made an entire career out of discussing the ethics of eating animals.
Here's an article where the Harvard Philosophy Professor Christine Korsgaard, one of the most respected moral philosophers in the world, discusses the ethics of eating meat: The Ethics of Eating Animals | Sustainability at Harvard
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.
The link you posted says it is a " a system of moral principles". Your link proved you wrong. You are a seriously deluded individual.
"How do the animal “rights” advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single — invalid — syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man’s rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think."
Eating meat doesn't cause suffering. Meat is an inanimate object, it doesn't suffer. Maybe killing the animals that eventually becomes my meat causes suffering, but I'm not killing anything when I engage in the action of the inanimate object that is meat.
Please read the thread before jumping in particularly if you are only making a very short comment like that.
I've addressed this exact concern twice now. In short, eating meat increases the demand for meat, which increases the number of animals killed.
The link you posted says it is a " a system of moral principles". Your link proved you wrong. You are a seriously deluded individual.
So you can't read down to #4. I'm not surprised, but here it is:
that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
And there is nothing wrong with killing animals to eat. It is ethical, moral, correct, rational, good, desirable, healthy, and normal. Both logically, and empirically. And the amount of killing is irrelevant to the goodness and correctness. So, no matter how much meat we eat, if we want more, it is always correct to keep raising farm stock to satisfy our demand, and expand our meat eating to any of the lower species that satisfy our dietary requirements.
This argument is entirely specious, because man’s rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think."
Let's say your IQ is 100 and mine is 110, just for kicks. Let's also say that we're walking through the woods and we realize that a bear is about to attack. I turn to you and say "Well, I have a better ability to think, so I think my rights trump your rights." Would you buy that argument?
Of course not. That is a stupid idea. One's thinking ability and one's right are entirely separate. No moral philosopher in the world would buy that.
So you can't read down to #4. I'm not surprised, but here it is:
that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
None of that implies that morality excludes man's actions toward animals. None of that implies that ethics only relate to how man behaves socially. As the other poster said, your own link proves you wrong.
Now let's get back to the actual topic. If you have a specific argument to make, make it. Otherwise, don't just keep asserting that eating meat is ethical.
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.
