Thread: Moral discussion: Why do you eat animals?

Animal don't feel compassion? You be trippin. animals feel compassion. if we didn't eat animals they would be over populated? Maybe we should eat humans... yum.
Don't feel guilty about what you eat, it makes it bad for you...

Yes, but animals need to eat other animals in order to survive. We do not. That's already been discussed. Since we have the option of eating plants, we can easily switch to an entirely herbivorous diet and spare animals the unnecessary suffering.

I'm guessing around 90% of the meat market comes from cows and chickens. These animals wouldn't exist in the first place if we didn't raise them fore the sole purpose of slaughtering them (which causes needless suffering). We wouldn't have to reduce the animal population if we didn't create it in the first place. Therefore the main idea here is that meat eaters are immoral since they could be eating fruits and vegetables instead of having animals suffer and killed so that they can get their meat fix.

If you were in the jungle, and you were confronted by a tiger, do you think it would feel compassionate towards you and say "wow, he looks like a nice guy! I don't think I am going to eat him today even though I have tiger cubs I need to feed! let us move on to the small rodent I see over there!" ?

Originally Posted by erible

Because, if I were in a situation where there was a hungry, wild animal it wouldn't give two shits before it tried to bite my head off.
Animals don't feel compassion, (some may say domesticated ones do but I'm not talking about that) if we didn't eat animals they would be over populated. I do not go around slaughtering cows just for the hell of it and I am against abuse and such, but I mean, sometimes I want some steak ya know? I do feel guilty, but I don't find it to make me feeling so guilty that I would become vegetarian because of it.

Do you think that we should behave like wild animals, or do our higher reasoning powers allow us to find a better way to live?

It doesn't matter if animals don't feel compassion, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show them any. The fact that you feel guilty about it means that you already do feel some compassion for animals.

Most overpopulated animals are ones we don't eat. The only ones we do eat we grow ourselves, so if we stopped making so many there wouldn't be so many.

Originally Posted by MindGames

Yes, but animals need to eat other animals in order to survive. We do not. That's already been discussed. Since we have the option of eating plants, we can easily switch to an entirely herbivorous diet and spare animals the unnecessary suffering.

I'm guessing around 90% of the meat market comes from cows and chickens. These animals wouldn't exist in the first place if we didn't raise them fore the sole purpose of slaughtering them (which causes needless suffering). We wouldn't have to reduce the animal population if we didn't create it in the first place. Therefore the main idea here is that meat eaters are immoral since they could be eating fruits and vegetables instead of having animals suffer and killed so that they can get their meat fix.

I do see where you are coming from. But the animal is already going to be killed so we aren't saving anything. Animals are not equivalent to human beings, just because GENERALLY people (except PETA) if there was a house burning on fire and you had to choose between saving an animal or a family member, you would choose the family member.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Do you think that we should behave like wild animals, or do our higher reasoning powers allow us to find a better way to live?

It doesn't matter if animals don't feel compassion, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show them any. The fact that you feel guilty about it means that you already do feel some compassion for animals.

Most overpopulated animals are ones we don't eat. The only ones we do eat we grow ourselves, so if we stopped making so many there wouldn't be so many.

yes, I do have compassion for animals and I myself have considered becoming a vegetarian. I love animals actually. I do not eat meat every day, or even every week. I don't like thinking about eating a once living creature-which is a reason I do not eat seafood, I don't know but just something about seafood turns my stomach, and yes so does a beef patty. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a hamburger every once and a while

EDITh and I was just using that wild animal story as a metaphor showing that animals don't have compassion like us.

Originally Posted by erible

I do see where you are coming from. But the animal is already going to be killed so we aren't saving anything. Animals are not equivalent to human beings, just because GENERALLY people (except PETA) if there was a house burning on fire and you had to choose between saving an animal or a family member, you would choose the family member.

In saying this you assume that the individual consumer does not influence a market demand economy. Untrue. If there is less demand for meat, less of it will be produced, thereby decreasing the amount of animals that are killed in the long run compared to if you were to continue eating meat.

Make sense?

Originally Posted by MindGames

In saying this you assume that the individual consumer does not influence a market demand economy. Untrue. If there is less demand for meat, less of it will be produced, thereby decreasing the amount of animals that are killed in the long run compared to if you were to continue eating meat.

Make sense?

I'm saying; do you know how many people eat meat? the meat market wouldn't go down significantly in short amount of time, and a ton of more people would have to become vegetarians, so generally speaking, a good amount of the population would have to stop eating meat, or eggs, etc. Which is not plausible in at least the near future

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

Or we could just let chickens lay their eggs and be our friends...

Oh and also we don't need animals to survive but then we would eat plants and make them suffer, so no matter what your killing something to live. Humans are very very cruel creatures, animals are never that way. They do not know things such as hate. They do not feel shame. They do not kill other animals needlessly (normally). blah blah blah blah.

I agree with you. But animals also cannot talk, or create things, at least significant things. They are pretty neutral. I agree though that people are cruel, war, etc.

Originally Posted by MindGames

Yes, but animals need to eat other animals in order to survive. We do not. That's already been discussed. Since we have the option of eating plants, we can easily switch to an entirely herbivorous diet and spare animals the unnecessary suffering.

I'm guessing around 90% of the meat market comes from cows and chickens. These animals wouldn't exist in the first place if we didn't raise them fore the sole purpose of slaughtering them (which causes needless suffering). We wouldn't have to reduce the animal population if we didn't create it in the first place. Therefore the main idea here is that meat eaters are immoral since they could be eating fruits and vegetables instead of having animals suffer and killed so that they can get their meat fix.

Or we could just let chickens lay their eggs and be our friends...

Oh and also we don't need animals to survive but then we would eat plants and make them suffer, so no matter what your killing something to live. Humans are very very cruel creatures, animals are never that way. They do not know things such as hate. They do not feel shame. They do not kill other animals needlessly (normally). blah blah blah blah.

Originally Posted by erible

If you were in the jungle, and you were confronted by a tiger, do you think it would feel compassionate towards you and say "wow, he looks like a nice guy! I don't think I am going to eat him today even though I have tiger cubs I need to feed! let us move on to the small rodent I see over there!" ?

No, because the tiger does not have a choice. The tiger must eat what is available because it needs food to survive. Therefore that says nothing about the tiger's capacity for compassion. Anyway, what does it matter if a tiger is compassionate? Are you going to hold a grudge against it because its biology gives it a legitimate reason to kill, while you, on the other hand, cannot because you are able to reason that eating plants would reduce the suffering of other sentient organisms? Simply put, it's immoral to kill an animal, simply because you know you're unnecessarily causing it to suffer, and you forgo the easily accessible, benevolent alternative.

But plants suffer too!!! And everything dies eventually.... its just a matter of time

Originally Posted by MindGames

No, because the tiger does not have a choice. The tiger must eat what is available because it needs food to survive. Therefore that says nothing about the tiger's capacity for compassion. Anyway, what does it matter if a tiger is compassionate? Are you going to hold a grudge against it because its biology gives it a legitimate reason to kill, while you, on the other hand, cannot because you are able to reason that eating plants would reduce the suffering of other sentient organisms? Simply put, it's immoral to kill an animal, simply because you know you're unnecessarily causing it to suffer, and you forgo the easily accessible, benevolent alternative.

I was just using that example as an analogy, not to get into the DNA of a tiger.
In the end-people will always eat meat, people will always kill each other etc, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by erible

I'm saying; do you know how many people eat meat? the meat market wouldn't go down significantly in short amount of time, and a ton of more people would have to become vegetarians, so generally speaking, a good amount of the population would have to stop eating meat, or eggs, etc. Which is not plausible in at least the near future

Yes, millions of people eat meat. Your point?

Let's say you stop eating meat for the rest of your life. You create less demand, and indirectly cause, let's say, 3 less chickens and 1 less cow to die per year. By not eating meat, you've saved 4 lives in one year. (In reality, I don't know how exactly many animal lives are spared, however that seems like a good estimate.) It doesn't matter if everybody else is eating meat. Your actions have already caused less suffering to occur in the future, since you have created less demand for meat. Using the excuse, "well, everybody else is eating meat" isn't going to cut it in this situation. You are responsible for the animals that you eat. (indirectly)

Originally Posted by MindGames

Yes, millions of people eat meat. Your point?

Let's say you stop eating meat for the rest of your life. You create less demand, and indirectly cause, let's say, 3 less chickens and 1 less cow to die per year. By not eating meat, you've saved 4 lives in one year. (In reality, I don't know how exactly many animal lives are spared, however that seems like a good estimate.) It doesn't matter if everybody else is eating meat. Your actions have already caused less suffering to occur in the future, since you have created less demand for meat.

okay? but what about Bob over there who just got a dozen eggs and a steak at the grocery store? what about the natural death of the cow and the chicken anyways?

my point is, me, myself, I cannot personally, independently, lower the distribution of meat.

Originally Posted by erible

I was just using that example as an analogy, not to get into the DNA of a tiger.
In the end-people will always eat meat, people will always kill each other etc, etc, etc.

It doesn't matter. You are responsible for your own actions. I realize that you can't control what other people do, but that doesn't change the nature of the situation in that you can make a difference in the amount of immorality that occurs in the meat industry.

Also I think humans see themselves as separate from nature even though they are not. they think they are supreme because of their rationality but rationality led the world to the state it is in today, where so many humans and animals and plants and everything else suffer and live unhappy lives.

Originally Posted by erible

okay? but what about Bob over there who just got a dozen eggs and a steak at the grocery store? what about the natural death of the cow and the chicken anyways?

Bob has always bought a dozen eggs and steak from the grocery store. You can't use Bob as an excuse to continue eating meat and eggs.

Originally Posted by MindGames

Bob has always bought a dozen eggs and steak from the grocery store. You can't use Bob as an excuse to continue eating meat and eggs.

I am not. I am using Bob as an excuse for the reason that I personally cannot lower the meat distribution process if everyone around me continues to buy more meat. YES I can control my own actions, but who cares? that won't make a difference if MILLIONS of other people continue buying meat!

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

Also I think humans see themselves as separate from nature even though they are not. they think they are supreme because of their rationality but rationality led the world to the state it is in today, where so many humans and animals and plants and everything else suffer and live unhappy lives.

you can still choose to be happy though

Originally Posted by erible

my point is, me, myself, I cannot personally, independently, lower the distribution of meat.

Okay, that's what I'm getting at. You can reduce the amount of meat that is produce by causing less demand on the market. Your actions won't have an immediate effect; it starts taking effect after the store realizes they have too much meat on their hands, and therefore demand less meat from the butchers.

Originally Posted by erible

I am not. I am using Bob as an excuse for the reason that I personally cannot lower the meat distribution process if everyone around me continues to buy more meat. YES I can control my own actions, but who cares? that won't make a difference if MILLIONS of other people continue buying meat!

People will continue to buy meat for as long as they want to, but it's not like they're going to increase the frequency at which they buy meat just because you stopped. By ceasing to purchase meat, you create less demand, and as I explained in my last post, indirectly cause the butchers to have to slaughter less animals.

Originally Posted by MindGames

Okay, that's what I'm getting at. You can reduce the amount of meat that is produce by causing less demand on the market. Your actions won't have an immediate effect; it starts taking effect after the store realizes they have too much meat on their hands, and therefore demand less meat from the butchers.

but that wouldn't happen, since there are hundreds of other people who visit the store to buy meat anyways. here is a situation: I go to Hy-Vee, I look what I want for dinner and I choose to buy some pasta, when normally I would get a T-Bone steak, but I decided not to, then, Bob, picks up three T-Bone steaks because he and his family are having a barbecue later today.

see, my whole action of not buying meat, was canceled out

the slaughter house is not going to say "oh, Ericka didn't buy some steak this week, lets not slaughter another cow that will get slaughtered anyways because they are "specially breed" for being slaughtered"

that just is not going to happen.

Originally Posted by erible

you can still choose to be happy though

You can't choose to be happy.... happiness is about love. Everyone wants to be loved humans, animals of all types, plants. Thats assuming happiness is all in the mind but its not. many people are really unhappy but live in the subjective reality of their mind to escape it.

Originally Posted by erible

but that wouldn't happen, since there are hundreds of other people who visit the store to buy meat anyways. here is a situation: I go to Hy-Vee, I look what I want for dinner and I choose to buy some pasta, when normally I would get a T-Bone steak, but I decided not to, then, Bob, picks up three T-Bone steaks because he and his family are having a barbecue later today.

see, my whole action of not buying meat, was canceled out

Don't you realize that you're assuming that Bob picks up the T-Bone steaks that you decided not to buy? Bob's not going to buy more T-Bone steaks just because you decided not to. Bob could give less of a shit what you decided to buy.

some answers I'd like to see in this thread would be:
because I don't care about my surroundings or the animals life
because meat makes me feel more masculine, or lets me fit in with my surroundings
because I've always eaten meat, and change scares me

Originally Posted by erible

but who cares? that won't make a difference if MILLIONS of other people continue buying meat!

pretty shit response dude ):
the "my vote doesn't count" thing doesn't work

something else, I do not agree with how they genetically enhance animals to be more profitable to themselves