By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Is meat-eating morally wrong?

 

Answer the damn question!

Absolutely not. 150 53.38%
 
No, but the treatment of animals is wrong. 89 31.67%
 
Yes, but I'm still gonna eat meat. 16 5.69%
 
Yes, and I'm lowering my meat-intake 12 4.27%
 
Yes, and I don't eat meat. 14 4.98%
 
Total:281
mrstickball on 17 October 2012

It'd be nice if the Vegans and vegetarians stopped from trying to force meat-eaters into their dietary preferences.

Some days, I don't eat meat at all. Other days I do. Both things can be delicious, and tasty. However, I'm not going to prevent myself from eating a specific kind of food, just because you get yourself flustered over the issue.

Having said that, I eventually want to raise all of my own meat and butcher it.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
Jay520 on 17 October 2012
mrstickball said:
It'd be nice if the Vegans and vegetarians stopped from trying to force meat-eaters into their dietary preferences.


like who?



Jay520 on 17 October 2012
SlayerRondo said:


But that's just it isnt it. The biggest part of what makes eating animals OK but not humans is our morality. Are Animals without any concept of good or bad worth anything more that their meat? How can we claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard to thoose who have none nor ever will? Will a cow lion ever feel sadness for eating a Zebra? 

I dont belive that their is evidence to support the argument that animals have emotions at all or that releasing farm animals into the wild would be good for us or the animals as they may not survice in todays enviroment after being bred for food for so long.


It really depends on your own morals. Do you think it's okay to eat an animal just because it has a low sense of morality? Some do, some don't.

As for the emotions, I've linked you to some webpages and it's easy to search for more if you want.



superchunk on 17 October 2012
Jay520 said:
superchunk said:

1. Religious point of view: Every religion has it as an allowed option in our diets.

2. Scientific point of view: Our bodies have evolved to not only have meat as part of our natural diet, but its required otherwise you could go blind or have many other deficiencies as certain things ONLY come from meat protein. Furthermore, a simple study of our ancestors proves that the species with healthy amounts of meat in its diet had the biggest evolutionary changes to larger brains... obviously an important part our current physiology. (If you try to argue a case for Vegans, then you don't know shit as they are required to take vitamins to make up for what is lost in not eating any meat products and taking medicines is not natural... just eat an appropriate meal.)

3. Nature point of view: There is simply no case on this planet (and probably others we'll eventually find) where there exists entire biosphere where one species does not eats/consumes another. Its simply the natural factor of life. Its also a very important driver of evolution as well as population control.

What about the moral point of view?

That only contends with how they are treated/farmed prior to slaughter, including the action of slaughte itself. As long as thats done in a humane manner, i.e. good living conditions throughout life and as quick a death as possible... there is no moral issue. Problem is a lot of our farming has went from natural to doing whatever it takes to make the biggest return on investment. That's why me and my money go to open range style meats. Have to vote with your wallet to make a change. Too bad the rest of US didn't realize this.



mrstickball on 17 October 2012
Jay520 said:
mrstickball said:
It'd be nice if the Vegans and vegetarians stopped from trying to force meat-eaters into their dietary preferences.


like who?


The ones that constantly try to force new laws on the books that drive up the cost of meat, while giving their own lobbies subsidies, mostly.

Also, people that turn it into an issue of moral superiority - those that believe that the death of animals is some sort of evil that has no comparison. Many animals are treated with respect and honor before they die to become food. Furthermore, if some animals were not killed, their populations would grow to unsustainable levels, causing pain and suffering for the animals as well as humans. Wild pigs and deer are very good examples of this. Without deer hunting, disease would be rampant, and many deer would (also) starve to death, while depriving humans of grains.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
wfz on 17 October 2012

I'm too lazy to read through these 100+ posts. Has anyone mentioned overpopulation of animals when not regularly hunted by their predators?

Humans are a great example of this (har har), but it is a legitimate problem for other animals and is why hunting seasons are allowed and healthy for population control.

 

EDIT: Oh, and of course you'd eat the meat, so that's how it all ties into this. No reason to let good meat go to waste!



mrstickball on 17 October 2012
wfz said:
I'm too lazy to read through these 100+ posts. Has anyone mentioned overpopulation of animals when not regularly hunted by their predators?

Humans are a great example of this (har har), but it is a legitimate problem for other animals and is why hunting seasons are allowed and healthy for population control.


I just mentioned it 2 posts up, hehe.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Jay520 on 17 October 2012
superchunk said:

That only contends with how they are treated/farmed prior to slaughter, including the action of slaughter itself. As long as thats done in a humane manner, i.e. good living conditions throughout life and as quick a death as possible... there is no moral issue. Problem is a lot of our farming has went from natural to doing whatever it takes to make the biggest return on investment. That's why me and my money go to open range style meats. Have to vote with your wallet to make a change. Too bad the rest of US didn't realize this.


With some, meat-eating in general is wrong. But it's good to see the type of meat you eat.



wfz on 17 October 2012
mrstickball said:
wfz said:
I'm too lazy to read through these 100+ posts. Has anyone mentioned overpopulation of animals when not regularly hunted by their predators?

Humans are a great example of this (har har), but it is a legitimate problem for other animals and is why hunting seasons are allowed and healthy for population control.


I just mentioned it 2 posts up, hehe.


I just noticed that right after I posted. You are quick of the hand, my friend.



Jay520 on 17 October 2012
mrstickball said:

The ones that constantly try to force new laws on the books that drive up the cost of meat, while giving their own lobbies subsidies, mostly.

Also, people that turn it into an issue of moral superiority - those that believe that the death of animals is some sort of evil that has no comparison. Many animals are treated with respect and honor before they die to become food. Furthermore, if some animals were not killed, their populations would grow to unsustainable levels, causing pain and suffering for the animals as well as humans. Wild pigs and deer are very good examples of this. Without deer hunting, disease would be rampant, and many deer would (also) starve to death, while depriving humans of grains.

Fair enough.

As for the second part, I don't think it has to do with having superior morals; it's moreso different morals. I'm aware of the benefits of hunting to control population and I don't think any people would consider that wrong. It's necessary for a greater good.