Thread: Moral discussion: Why do you eat animals?

Originally Posted by DuB

I read the first two points and felt that I got the gist. The first is a rambling anecdote about hydrochloric acid, the point of which I am unable to discern. The second asserts that vegetarian mammals like cows and rabbits produce "cellulace" [sic] in order to digest plant material, which is patently false. Clearly some quality arguments in this document.

I kind of expected you to say as much. I wasn't too impressed with the guy either and I even noticed some of his information was off the mark, but I thought it was worth posting anyway because it mirrored my opinion on most aspects of the argument. Such as the fact that our species evolved as hunter-gatherers who ate meat, which opposes the notion that it's immoral to eat meat (not considering how the animals are treated before their slaughter.) If there is no moral reason to turn vegetarian, and it offers no significant advantage, while requiring extra time and effort to adhere to, I see no reason for me to change my diet. I'd say the jury is still out on whether a vegetarian diet is even equal with a meat diet, let alone superior to, in terms of athletic performance. It could very well be the case that it is, but there aren't enough vegetarian athletes out there to know for certain (it's a fact that there has never been a vegetarian Mr. Olympia, but that's not really a fair argument considering the ratio of vegetarian bodybuilders to meat-eating bodybuilders. That argument would hold true for nearly every sport, however.) There is the argument that, especially among female athletes who need a lot of protein, it's difficult to get the protein they need without eating too many calories. This means they need to spend more time on cardio to avoid getting fat, which is of course an unnecessary burden on their training schedule.

Originally Posted by DuB

It doesn't matter in any case, because this whole class of argument concerning what we are "meant" to eat or what is "natural" to eat is silly and irrelevant, whether it aims to show that we are "meant" to eat meat or that we are "meant" to eat plants. If I am "meant" to eat or not eat something, who exactly is it that means this for me? And what does it even mean to say that something is "natural" or "unnatural" for me to eat? These are confused notions from the start and they certainly shouldn't serve as a basis for what you or I should eat. What matters is simply that one eats what makes the most sense for one to eat. If someone wants to argue that it doesn't make sense not to eat meat, or that it doesn't make sense to eat meat, then fine, make that argument. That's really what's at stake, after all. Preaching about what is "natural" for people to eat is nothing more than empty words no matter which side it comes from.

I can't say I understand what you mean. Some species are naturally carnivores, some are naturally omnivores, and some are herbivores. It would be "natural" for an omnivore to eat both meat and plants, and it would then be "unnatural" for a herbivore to eat meat, or vice versa. There is no "who" involved. There isn't anybody to dictate what's right and what's wrong in this argument. If we evolved eating meat, I can't see the act of eating meat as an inherently negative thing. Meat in itself doesn't cause disease (assuming it's properly prepared,) it's a number of other factors. Just like the sun can give you cancer, but that doesn't mean you should never go out in the sun. I do agree that omnivores are not bound to either extreme and could therefore exercise more choice in the matter.

I don't know what sort of adverse effects may come of feeding a herbivore meat, but it probably wouldn't be good. That's what I mean by "natural." Our digestive systems are built to handle meat.

Originally Posted by DuB

A reliably lower prevalence of obesity, coronary heart disease, stroke, some cancers, hypertension, type II diabetes, gallstones, and diverticular disease is "minuscule" in your opinion?

Yeah! I'm at risk for most of those things by mere virtue of being alive. I can speak for myself and say I lead an otherwise healthy life, so I don't see why I should concern myself with those things. It's the fat asses who don't eat any vegetables and go to McDonalds everyday who end up with those diseases. Honestly, I have about 7% body fat and I have a diverse diet, am I really at risk for type II diabetes? Health nuts get cancer and have strokes all the time.

One could also pose the argument that vegetarianism is a lifestyle in and of itself. There is a mindset among vegetarians that is very health oriented, and it could therefore be their lifestyle and not the fact that they eat no meat which is responsible for their greater health.

Originally Posted by DuB

This is a bit like saying that there's no need to completely quit smoking cigarettes just to lower your risk of lung cancer; one could smoke just a few a day instead and still be better off than before. That's granted, but of course it's a pretty silly point. Obviously quitting completely is still going to be better than smoking just a few. If getting a few cigs per day is worth it to you, then hey, that's your prerogative.

I don't quite see those things as being related. Cigarettes have no advantage whatsoever. To compare the health risks of smoking to eating meat is to blow the risks of eating meat way out of proportion.

Originally Posted by DuB

You really seem to think it's difficult, huh. Take it from me: it's not that difficult. It's hard for a little while because eating meat has become so habitual, but once you get over the "hump" and learn to adapt, it's pretty much a breeze. Last March I decided as a personal experiment to not eat meat for a year. For the first couple months I got occasional meat cravings, and I had to learn to adjust my diet to make up for the missing meat. But now, 9 months later, I don't crave steak. I crave things like mushrooms. Big, delicious, marinated mushrooms. (Although I do still occasionally crave, of all things, buffalo chicken wings. Hopefully that will pass with time as well. ) Meeting my nutritional needs is also a non-issue. In fact, the only time my diet is really ever an inconvenience to me is if I'm invited to something like a BBQ restaurant where I know that their menu will require that I eat a boring salad.

I've heard it's a son of a bitch, but that's all I have to go on since I've never tried it for myself. I guess I'd have to take your word for it. I'm assuming you aren't an athlete though, and I'm guessing things would be more difficult for a serious athlete.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Given all of the evidence: social responsibility, environmental, moral, nutritional and health, I have come to the conclusion a long time ago that anyone who continues to eat animal products (besides roadkill) just doesn't really care or is ignorant about these issues.

Chimps very occasionally hunt and eat monkeys, but it seems to be based on territorial elimination of competition rather than a need to eat meat. Gorillas also have incisors like us but they are vegans except for the occasional grub. Even many "herbivores" (deer, rabbits, squirrels) will munch up locusts and cicadas.

Why are you comparing humans to other species? How do chimps and gorillas have any bearing on what we eat?

I still don't get how it could be considered immoral for a meat-eating creature to kill and eat another creature. I don't see how the development of a conscience plays into this at all. The fact that I know I am inflicting harm does not and should not have an affect of the fact that Im hungry and it would make sense to eat this meat that is in front of me. American's have the luxury to choose what they eat, but in a lot of places you still have to take what you can get. It's seems kind of arrogant in my opinion that you would attach any sort of negative stigma to the act of eating meat. And it's wrong to call it ignorant.

If it's the knowledge that animals are suffering that you can't stand, how do you cope with the knowledge that you won't ever end that suffering? Animals will be slaughtered no matter what you eat. Just like hippies and war protesters won't ever bring the world any closer to peace. It doesn't make sense for me to base my life philosophy on other people's actions. As long as I don't torture any animals myself, or am not directly responsible for their torture, I don't think I should be made to feel guilty about the issue. I literally have no control over it.