Thread: Moral discussion: Why do you eat animals?

If you aren't completely ignoring me, let me ask another question. Do you really think that morality is a joke, and if so why are wasting your time taking part in a discussion of morality.

Originally Posted by Somii

I didn't assert that animal slaughtering is inevitable. Look again. Also, I know that if I were to stop buying meat, it would be very unlikely for the production of meat to drop. If, however, a substantial amount of people were to stop buying meat, then your supply-demand argument may be used to effect, and thus, relevant in response.

You said that animal slaughtering was an inevitable action.

Originally Posted by Somii

We're immoral meat eaters, because we're eating meat that originated from animals that suffered from immoral practices, caused by other humans? (...) One could say that another human's inevitable actions are out of their personal control as that of a winter storm that will continue anyway, and that they're just picking up the results.

See? I bolded it for you in case you have a hard time finding it.
And if I am somehow mistaken, then please explain what you meant by "another human's inevitable actions" if not animal slaughtering.


I'm not trying to persuade you to do anything. You don't have to stop buying meat, because you're right, it won't affect much compared to the millions of people who still eat meat.
In theory, though, if someone were to stop buying a product that they regularly bought, then over time the lack of sales to that person would show up, therefore causing that much less meat to be bought by the meat reseller (Wal-Mart, etc), and causing the slaughterhouses to have that much more surplus, which would cause that much less cows to be slaughtered the next time around. Even if you only eat one cow's worth of meat in two years, that's one less cow that has to be slaughtered. Over time, you will have made an impact, however small.
You are right, though, that a large amount of people (yes, they are single individuals like yourself) would be required to make a substantial difference in the meat industry.

Originally Posted by Somii

No, I'm not. Check your reasoning.

My reasoning is in check, thank you.
1. You said morality is a joke (don't make me quote it).
2. Therefore, according to you, anything concerning morals is a joke in terms of its morality, and is not a serious matter.
3. Killing your mother is immoral. (derived from generally accepted morals)
4. Based on (2), the immorality of killing your mother is a joke, and the idea of it isn't wrong at all to you.

If you don't take morals seriously, then any action is acceptable to you. Therefore, you condone rape and manslaughter.

Go ahead and contradict me if you'd like. Based on what I've shown, you condone all immoral actions. That, or you're just getting defensive and denying logic.

Originally Posted by Somii

In relevance to animals getting slaughtered by humans, if not by our farms, then simply by ourselves.

What? That sentence was worded strangely.
Anyway, I don't see how that relates to the amount of cows that are slaughtered every day to keep up with the amount of meat that is consumed. It wouldn't matter if farms slaughtered cows en masse, or if individuals raised their own cows and killed them. That's a whole lot of unnecessary killing.
That is, of course, considering we are able to sustain ourselves with fruits and vegetables only. To be honest, I don't know how much farmland that would require.

I can foresee someone thinking that if everybody raised their own cows, then they could wait for it to naturally die and eat it's meat right after it dies. If people were to do that, then eating meat would be completely morally acceptable. However I don't know how safe it would be to eat an already-dead cow, or what the quality of the meat would be. In any case, the reality of the current situation is that most people don't raise their own cows, and they largely rely on butchers for their meat. Until that changes, eating meat perpetuates immorality.

Originally Posted by stonedape

If you aren't completely ignoring me, let me ask another question. Do you really think that morality is a joke, and if so why are wasting your time taking part in a discussion of morality.

The same reason as to why I watch a comedy. This moral discussion is nothing but mental masturbation to those participating. It was of some interest for some time, but now my opponents prove uninteresting to me. So, if I don't reply to your calling, were I to cross it, then it'll be likely that I am ignoring you.

Originally Posted by Somii

I didn't assert that animal slaughtering is inevitable. Look again. Also, I know that if I were to stop buying meat, it would be very unlikely for the production of meat to drop. If, however, a substantial amount of people were to stop buying meat, then your supply-demand argument may be used to effect, and thus, relevant in response.

How many animals does a meat eater eat in his lifetime? That is how many animals you save by becoming vegetarian. You could argue that someone else would just eat the animals that you didn't, but still, the production does drop off eith just one person becoming vegetarian. All those breakfast places that serve eggs, imagine how many eggs are eaten a day in just one breakfast restaurant. Imagine the chicken factories that exist just so people can go out to breakfast on Sundays. I have literally seen hundreds of eggs arriving each day at one of these places. I used to work at one of these places. One person does make a difference in many animals lives and deaths. Sure one person isn't enough to put one of these places out of business, but it still makes a difference in the lives of many animals. If only predatory animals ate the meat that factories meat factories produce, the meat factories would go out of business because they don't profit. They only profit if people buy meat with money. Animals don't buy meat, so they are not supporting the people who own these horrible factories.

Has anyone been near one of these factories? It really smells worse than shit, even from miles away. One can hear animals screaming. I don't know how anybody can stomach eating meat from these filthy filthy places.

Another thought: there are cans of tuna fish in every grocery store, in every 7-11 across the world. They all can't be 100% tuna. If they were, the tuna fish would have been extinct many years ago, considering that Tuna aren't farmed. In fact, tuna fish are greatly depleted and are in danger of going extinct already.

One person going vegetarian saves many many lives. One person does make a difference. Read what I quoted Einstein as saying in my last post. Einstein was a genius and he was a vegetarian, and he thought logically and correctly that the vegetarian diet makes logical sense and can greatly affect the planet for the better. It is not just a moral issue regarding the suffering of the animals, but a moral issue regarding the environmental impact domestic animal farms have on the environment. I would like to remind y'all meat eaters about the devastation the planet is going through right now at the hands of meat eaters, but that would be redundant. Reread this thread if you forgot. It is the greatest source of destruction on the planet right now.

That being said, at times I eat eggs. At times I will eat wild game if it is offered to me. In a survival situation I would not hesitate to eat meat. But since my survival is not at stake, I eat vegan options that taste just as great, if not better in my opinion. Much asian food is vegan. There is no butter or milk in asian food, except Indian food. Yes, asians eat meat, but only occasionally.

Meat is also more expensive. Someone said that it was cheaper, No, it isn't. The way fast food restaurants can afford to sell burgers so cheap is that most of the burger is in fact soy protein. Yet McDonald's is cutting down vast amounts of the Amazon for their burgers.

Also, people think that animal suffering doesn't count as much as human suffering. This is not true. This is an instinctual drive, not logical. Yes, humans are also like animals in that they have instincts. It really boils down to that your suffering or lack thereof is more important than anyone else's. While instinctual, it is not a moral or logical argument, because my suffering is more important to me than yours, even though we are both humans. It is a selfish argument, rationalizing fulfillment of illogical desires. Really it is a way of rationalizing "my sensory gratification is more important than many animals' lives."

Also, if everyone raised their own cows, and waited for it to die, and then ate it, in my opinion that would still be immoral since we would still be raising cows outside of their natural chosen habitat. It is the same with imprisoning innocent people is immoral. Putting someone innocent in a prison and denying them freedom is immoral. It is also immoral to do that to animals, even if we don't kill them.

wow that first post made me hurt I'm vegetarian except sometimes I eat fish, which is mostly fish that is fresh caught from the ocean. The suffering of farm raised animals gnarly. Bad energy.

Actually there are tuna farms. There is a bluefin tuna farm at the coronado islands off of tijuana. I been fishing there before. I also think there is tuna farms in australia.

Originally Posted by MindGames

That is, of course, considering we are able to sustain ourselves with fruits and vegetables only. To be honest, I don't know how much farmland that would require.

About 8-10 times less than we are currently using. Realise that we are currently OVER-producing vegetables and grain to feed the animals that wouldn't otherwise exist if no one ate meat. And we'd only need to use 1/100th of the water we currently use.

Originally Posted by Somii

It was of some interest for some time, but now my opponents prove uninteresting to me.

Well a conversation works both ways, and since the first 9 pages have already dealt with the big issues ad nauseum, you haven't provided us much else to chew on.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

How many animals does a meat eater eat in his lifetime? That is how many animals you save by becoming vegetarian.

About 30 chickens, 1 cow and 1 pig a year. Each.

Another thought: there are cans of tuna fish in every grocery store, in every 7-11 across the world. They all can't be 100% tuna.

While being a pescetarian is a step in the right direction, you open yourself up to a lot of nasty health issues. Eating fish is basically the only way that humans allow mercury to enter their diets. Late stage mercury poisoning is some gnarly shit, and reads like a malady out of the Old Testament.

Read what I quoted Einstein as saying in my last post. Einstein was a genius and he was a vegetarian, and he thought logically and correctly that the vegetarian diet makes logical sense and can greatly affect the planet for the better.

It was a good quote, but I'd be careful about promoting it simply because Einstein was a smart guy. He was intelligent within his field for sure, but he still got things wrong there too (he didn't consider quantum mechanics to be correct, and couldn't have been more wrong about that).

I eat vegan options that taste just as great, if not better in my opinion. Much asian food is vegan. There is no butter or milk in asian food

What I love most about asian food is it's so quick to cook! The local asian restaurant near my place, Kwik Stix, the food is on your table - still sizzling - less than 5 minutes after you order it. Fast food, and healthy food too!

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Also, if everyone raised their own cows, and waited for it to die, and then ate it, in my opinion that would still be immoral since we would still be raising cows outside of their natural chosen habitat. It is the same with imprisoning innocent people is immoral. Putting someone innocent in a prison and denying them freedom is immoral. It is also immoral to do that to animals, even if we don't kill them.

Thing is, we've manipulated the evolutionary development of some animals so much now to the point that they wouldn't survive in the wild. No dairy cow could ever outrun a predator with such an unnaturally large udder flabbing around between its hind legs. The domestication we've bred them into has made them unsuitable for wild life.

If anyone is interested to see a movie-length documentary, you can watch 'Earthlings' for free here: Earthlings | Watch Free Documentary Online

Narrated by Joaquinn Phoenix. Not for the faint of heart. But if they have to go through it, the least you can do is bear witness to their suffering.

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.

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?

Animals don't live in society so morals don't really apply to them. You can apply them to them but it's kind of silly. Animals can't communicate on the same level that humans can so they can't empathize on the same level.

It's ok for you to eat meat, but personally I try to do better than ok when I can. Not saying I'm better than you or anything just that not eating animals causes less suffering and thus is more ethical.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

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.

From this logic it does not follow that it is good to eat animals, but rather that it is better to eat animals than to eat humans. I heartily agree.

We should extend our morals to animals because it makes us more caring people. It is a practice, the cultivation of a way of being that causes the most happiness for the most creatures(and conversely causes the least suffering).

Let me repost my question from the page before since no one answered it.

Would you agree that causing unnecessary suffering is immoral, even if you believe that eating animals is necessary for your own survival?

Morals suck. Animals actually know what freedom is.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

It was a good quote, but I'd be careful about promoting it simply because Einstein was a smart guy. He was intelligent within his field for sure, but he still got things wrong there too (he didn't consider quantum mechanics to be correct, and couldn't have been more wrong about that).


Thing is, we've manipulated the evolutionary development of some animals so much now to the point that they wouldn't survive in the wild. No dairy cow could ever outrun a predator with such an unnaturally large udder flabbing around between its hind legs. The domestication we've bred them into has made them unsuitable for wild life.

Yes, good point, I am not saying that we should listen to Einstein because he is all-knowing. I know it came across like that, but I am saying that he is a smart guy, and he is right about this fact.
As for the second quote I quoted you: I think that it is immoral to manipulate the evolutionary development of animals so that they serve us and cannot serve themselves in the wild. It is immoral to manipulate the evolutionary development of an animal so that it cannot live in the wild, so that it has no natural habitat, so that its natural habitat is in our farms for slaughter. Not only is it immoral and causes suffering for them, it causes suffering for us because it is so much more unhealthy than natural wild meat.

Animals are only more free in that their perception is not clouded by thoughts about the past or future, about the difference between what is and what should be, but a human can achieve the same kind of freedom by becoming aware of their thoughts in my opinion. But I suppose I don't know for certain.

Morals only suck if they limit you, if you get caught up in what should be and lose sight of what is. Seeing clearly what is is freedom. If one merely does what one feels like one is not free, as one is subject to desires and fears.

I agree

I just got a crazy idea, instead of calling things moral or immoral.... we call them natural or unnatural, so the laws of nature are the morals.... which I would think are based around balance and unity.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Would you agree that causing unnecessary suffering is immoral, even if you believe that eating animals is necessary for your own survival?

No.

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.

If our agricultural knowledge is enough to sustain ourselves without having to cause unnecessary suffering to animals, then it is immoral to continue to cause unnecessary suffering by continuing to eat animals. It is the fact that we have higher reasoning capabilities that we are able to transcend the unnecessary suffering caused in nature, and to begin eating plants. If we choose to continue eating animals, we will still be natural, but not necessarily moral in the sense that we are trying to do what is in our power to increase the quality of life of other organisms.

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

I agree

I just got a crazy idea, instead of calling things moral or immoral.... we call them natural or unnatural, so the laws of nature are the morals.... which I would think are based around balance and unity.

Somethings are moral and natural, some immoral and natural, some moral and unnatural, some immoral and unnatural. I think that the two words signify different things and are pretty useful as they are. The more important thing is to realize that society is not separate from nature, it is a part of it. Many people view society as an escape from nature, from the wild, but you can't escape what you are. Though you can see it clearly and guide it.

seemed the right thing to do at the time i guess

Originally Posted by stonedape

Somethings are moral and natural, some immoral and natural, some moral and unnatural, some immoral and unnatural. I think that the two words signify different things and are pretty useful as they are. The more important thing is to realize that society is not separate from nature, it is a part of it. Many people view society as an escape from nature, from the wild, but you can't escape what you are. Though you can see it clearly and guide it.

I agree that humans sees themselves seperate from nature although we are not.

Morals are subjective.

love is god.

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

love is god.

Actually, love is an emotion produced by the human mind, driven by a series of chemical reactions. What's more:

God. noun. the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in many world religions.
love. noun. a strong positive emotion of regard and affection.

Simply by definition, I can thus show that your claim "love is god" (read: love = god) is false. Love ≠ god. Love is not god.


Sorry, please resume.

God is such a vague word, you can use it to mean almost anything you like. This is why I choose not to use it, I strongly doubt the existence of deities and non-organic beings, so I choose not to use it since this is the common meaning. But I also find that if you use God in a pantheistic sense you can gain some insight from the teachings of Christ, though I don't read much about him these days. You can decide that a word has no purpose and then say that whenever anyone uses it they are wrong or they make no sense, but I find value in trying to understand what they are trying to convey, crazy people are the some of the most interesting people.

You need more flexibility in your concepts mario, you don't have to throw them out the window, just learn to stretch them a bit. The word is a word, it's definition shows you a way you can use it, but it is not the only way you can use it, even if most people won't get it. Most people don't get abstract art and poetry, but I find them extremely deep and beautiful(sometimes).

The idea that love is god is a beautiful sentiment, though I also disagree, but more on the grounds that this universe is not so full of love as we like to see it being, many people have alternative motives. But this is just my experience, it may not be right for you saltyseadog.

But back on topic, what do you think about my question?
Would you agree that causing unnecessary suffering is immoral, even if you believe that eating animals is necessary for your own survival?

I started off cutting out red meat for my health, then found myself becoming more conscious of what I was putting into my body. I then started looking at where the food I was looking at was coming from. I became a vegetarian, then tried to be a vegan, for the sake of stopping animal cruelty.

Unfortunately, as much as people in North America like to say 'the natives never let a part of an animal go to waste', we're still doing the same. Everything from toothpaste to sugar is produced from dead animals.

Anyway, to answer the question, if I couldn't bring myself to kill an animal myself or milk it for its goopy teet chunks I wouldn't want someone selling me the result from someone else doing it either.

I just want to add, that while choosing to or not to eat meat is a personal choice, I haaaate when people say "Well I have canines, so I'm meant to eat meat." You also have legs- does that mean you shouldn't drive around in cars? As human we have the capacity for higher thought, and to allow ourselves to make choices that take us beyond the restrictions and evolutionary designs of our antecedents. It's fine if you want to eat meat- I do- but I'm going to take responsibility for that choice and not try to pass what is clearly a moral and ethical decision off as a whimsy of dental fate.

there is no darkness there is only lack of light

When i see animals suffering there whole lives I see bad/negative energy and that is what it is. It is what it is. They are unhappy. It's not nessesary at the moment to eat meat to survive. I don't eat meat.