Originally Posted by
tkdyo
Now first, let me say that I do eat meat, and that I do find the economic and health arguments much more interesting than the moral ones. The reason for this is the moral argument seems to be based on the fact that we as humans have a higher intellect for reasoning than animals. However, it has also been stated that even if another animal had the same amount of intellect as us, they would still not be morally reprehensible for eating meat because they would still have no choice but to eat meat. If this is the case, then is what really puts us in the moral obligation to eat differently our technology? Or is it simply meant that its ok for the hypothetical animal to do so because it is biologically capable of only eating meat?
Either way, the problem to me is when arguing morality a meat eater isnt allowed to use the fact that we naturally hold humans in a higher regard than other animals to say its ok to eat meat (weather in the interest of protecting our species or just because of higher intellect), when a vegetarian is allowed to use the exact same argument to insist that we are morally above eating meat. I recognize the argument about how much grain and such goes to supporting the animals we eat (which I feel belongs more in the economic/environmental discussion), but if we are having a strictly moral argument about if its ok to eat meat (as in, ending another organisms life to eat it) then I dont see how placing more value on the higher reasoning capabilities of humans is morally unjustifiable when this same argument (our superior intellect) is used for why we should use our morals on animals in the first place.