Do you consider eating meat wrong?

[Tenten]

A vegetarian told me once, Hindu if thought serves me correctly, that all life is sacred, and to consume the meat of another living creature is selfish because you do not need meat to survive. You can get protein by other means, like beans and soy. He said you are expecting another creature to die to satisfy your desire for meat, and that it pollutes the soul because of this. His words have stayed with me and left a very strong impression on me (I am an animal lover), and I have contemplated becoming vegetarian because of this, but I enjoy meat. It is amazing how difficult meat is to give up.

I know there must be some vegetarians in this forum, and plenty of others like me who eat meat. Do you consider eating meat wrong, why or why not?

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, I don't think that eating meat is wrong. I don't think that our moral relationship to non-human species is the same as our moral relationship to other members of our own species. I don't see that we "pollute our soul" by eating meat, and I'm not sure what that is even supposed to mean.

Of course, if you want to be a vegetarian, go for it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[yasic]

I am a hypocrite, I do enjoy eating meat yet I consider it wrong. You could say that I am evil and I know just how evil I am. No matter how hard I try, I just cannot seem to give it up.

Now, it does not have to do with the fact that they are alive... apples are just as alive as cows or humans. What makes them special is that they can feel pain, and I do not enjoy all of the pain we give them in our production facilities (I see nothing wrong with eating free-range, hunted animals, fish, or anything else with minimal intellectual capacity).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I do not consider it wrong to eat meat because, well, I can't see anything wrong with it per se. How you rear and slaughter animals can be unethical, but the mere act of eating meat (or rearing or slaughtering for food) is not inherently wrong.

 

[hv/2π]

.

 

[Zebra1552]

God gave us the animals. Can't really be against it.

 

[nolongerhome]

I'm a vegetarian.

I don't consider eating meat per se wrong, though.

I'm a vegetarian for ethical and environmental reasons, mainly to do with the way we produce meat, the way the animals are treated, the negative impact on the environment this is having etc. Basically I think that for the most part animals are treated cruelly and forced to suffer unnecessarily, and I don't think what we are doing is environmentally sustainable, so I don't want to be a contributor to that.

So yeah, it is the way we get meat, rather than the eating of it, that is my issue. Theoretically I wouldn't have a problem with eating organic meat, but I have very high levels of distrust for the industry - I fear that a lot of the time the "free range", "organic", "ethically raised" etc. labels are just that - labels and nothing more. As a result, I play it safe, and I'm a vegetarian.

I'm not militant about it, I'm not going to start attacking people for eating meat. I'd encourage people to think seriously about how they are getting their meat, though, and whether or not this is something we should accept as necessary. Meat has great nutritional value, though it isn't the only source of those nutrients, and it tastes great when cooked well, so I'm not expecting everyone to just give it up.

 

[nolongerhome]

God gave us the animals. Can't really be against it.

A major assumption wrapped up with faulty logic.

1. The assumption that God gave animals to us... as if we are anything more than animals ourselves.
2. The fact that animals exist is free range to treat them as we would because their natural existence, and our natural reaction to it, must be supported by God. Homosexuality exists naturally, can God really be against that? We could go on here, but I won't.

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with eating meat, but your reasons for it make me want to argue that there is

The main reason they make me want to do that is because there are many negative consequences of your anthropocentric perspective on the environment. We are part of the environment. We are not "above" it.

 

[Zebra1552]

A major assumption wrapped up with faulty logic.

1. The assumption that God gave animals to us... as if we are anything more than animals ourselves.

It's not an assumption. It's a statement. That's what it says, in Genesis. There's more than enough evidence for me to believe it's accurate.

2. The fact that animals exist is free range to treat them as we would because their natural existence, and our natural reaction to it, must be supported by God. Homosexuality exists naturally, can God really be against that? We could go on here, but I won't.

No, actually, because your argument doesn't reflect mine and is thus a strawman.

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with eating meat, but your reasons for it make me want to argue that there is

That's nice.

The main reason they make me want to do that is because there are many negative consequences of your anthropocentric perspective on the environment. We are part of the environment. We are not "above" it.

Then how come we are able to ruin it more efficiently than any animal known?

 

[nolongerhome]

It's not an assumption. It's a statement. That's what it says, in Genesis. There's more than enough evidence for me to believe it's accurate.

What evidence?

The overwhelming evidence is that we are highly developed animals. Are you really going to dispute that?

No, actually, because your argument doesn't reflect mine and is thus a strawman.

Please, then, explain your argument that because animals exist God must be happy for us to eat them.

Then how come we are able to ruin it more efficiently than any animal known?

There are plenty of creatures which have the ability to destroy environments - parasites and locusts are the two most obvious ones I can think of in 5 seconds. Other animals manipulate the environment for their own gain - beavers engage in logging and building, less developed primates have developed primitive tool usage, bees are well known for their construction abilities...

We are the most intellectually developed animal, and as a result of our intellectual development have been able to harness natural forces with more efficiency and with greater power than other animals. That doesn't mean we have stopped being an animal, though. It doesn't mean that we no longer rely on the plethora of ecosystems in the world to survive. We are still just a part of the environment, even if human arrogance would see the environment as our slave.

We "can" do many things in nature because of our position of intellectual dominance. Can does not always equal should - that is why this part of the forum is about ethics and morality, not about ability.

 

[Zebra1552]

What evidence?

The overwhelming evidence is that we are highly developed animals. Are you really going to dispute that?

I meant for the credibility of the Bible and the statement that God gave us the animals. I bowed out of the Crevo debate long ago, and I'm not about to get into it again.

Please, then, explain your argument that because animals exist God must be happy for us to eat them.

That wasn't my argument, I just said that. Straw man.

There are plenty of creatures which have the ability to destroy environments - parasites and locusts are the two most obvious ones I can think of in 5 seconds. Other animals manipulate the environment for their own gain - beavers engage in logging and building, less developed primates have developed primitive tool usage, bees are well known for their construction abilities...

Mhm. That's nice. Do they ruin the environment? No, they destroy specific ecosystems.

We are the most intellectually developed animal, and as a result of our intellectual development have been able to harness natural forces with more efficiency and with greater power than other animals. That doesn't mean we have stopped being an animal, though. It doesn't mean that we no longer rely on the plethora of ecosystems in the world to survive.

If we are merely animals, then how come we are set apart in many ways from animals?

 

[Zebra1552]

We're not. We're just very, very smart animals.

We're not different because we're different. You may want to rephrase that.

 

[Ave Maria]

No, I do not consider eating meat to be wrong.

 

[nolongerhome]

I meant for the credibility of the Bible and the statement that God gave us the animals. I bowed out of the Crevo debate long ago, and I'm not about to get into it again.

That wasn't my argument, I just said that. Straw man.

So you don't want to talk about it... fair enough. Seems a bit pointless to come into a thread and making some fairly strong statements if you aren't willing to justify them.

Mhm. That's nice. Do they ruin the environment? No, they destroy specific ecosystems.

If we are merely animals, then how come we are set apart in many ways from animals?

How are we set apart from animals?

We are a highly developed animal - some animals can destroy ecosystems, we have taken it to a new level so that we can destroy whole environments That is a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference - it just means we are animals with a greater ability of destroying the environment around us, not that we are separate to animals.

Before you outline how we are set apart from animals, I'd encourage you to reflect on this qualitative/quantitative distinction. For eample, we humans can speak and use language to communicate. Does that set us apart from animals? Only in a quantitative sense - other animals have other means of communication, much simpler and less complex and nuanced than ours most probably, but it is still communication. Speech is evidence that we are a highly developed animal, not that we are set apart from animals.

I'd really be astounded if you could provide evidence that we are truly separate from animals rather than just highly developed animals.

 

[Zebra1552]

So you don't want to talk about it... fair enough. Seems a bit pointless to come into a thread and making some fairly strong statements if you aren't willing to justify them.

This isn't GA. The question was if I think eating animals is okay. I gave my answer and stated my reason, which I consider to be backed by evidence that is readily available in most bookstores or on the internet.

How are we set apart from animals?

We are a highly developed animal - some animals can destroy ecosystems, we have taken it to a new level so that we can destroy whole environments That is a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference - it just means we are animals with a greater ability of destroying the environment around us, not that we are separate to animals.

You just named quite a few of them.

Before you outline how we are set apart from animals, I'd encourage you to reflect on this qualitative/quantitative distinction. For eample, we humans can speak and use language to communicate. Does that set us apart from animals? Only in a quantitative sense - other animals have other means of communication, much simpler and less complex and nuanced than ours most probably, but it is still communication. Speech is evidence that we are a highly developed animal, not that we are set apart from animals.

I'd really be astounded if you could provide evidence that we are truly separate from animals rather than just highly developed animals.

Name me 10 other 'highly developed animals' that are in the same league as us, then. I believe the term I used was set apart.

 

[Zebra1552]

We're not different, just smart. Other animals show the possibility of evolving sentience, such as octopi, monkeys, and certain birds.

We're not different. We're just have a massively higher IQ than any other animal. Come now, you're not helping the case that there's nothing that sets us apart.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I don't think it's wrong; it's not ideal in my opinion.

I used to be vegetarian, but I realised I couldn't actually control my urge to eat meat. I think it's better now, that I eat meat once every other week from an animal treated fairly well (and reared locally), rather than not eating meat for two months and them eating McDonalds/KFC.

 

[Zebra1552]

Einstein and Leonardo da Vinchi had massively higher IQs then you or I, does make them more then human? We are fauna. We are animals.

...and merely repeating the same claims over and over doesn't convince me. Call me old fashioned.

 

[Macx]

I have heard that vegetarians taste good

You are a living organism that is not a plant or a bacteria, ergo, you are an animal.

I agree. I am a kind of animal called an Omnivore. Bears and some other animals fall in this category & eat a pretty wide variety of plants and animals. It is the nature of the beast. . . nothing to feel bad about.

Now off to the kitchen I go to make a plate of grains and meats and a veggie or two.

 

[Zebra1552]

You are a living organism that is not a plant or a bacteria, ergo, you are an animal.

Sounds like a false dilemma to me. I'm human.