The moral argument of eating meat & dairy

henryscat said:

Some science:
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/health-concerns-about-dairy-products

Click to expand...

yes, because that's clearly a completely unbiased site with no agenda at all

leading "news" items at the top of the front page:

Blame Salmonella on Meat
Vegetariano en 21 Dias
Get Milk Out of School Lunches
Help End Chimp Experiments
Harvard Lab Kills Primates
etc.

that's like someone linking to the daily mail to "prove" that blowjobs cure cancer..

i genuinely think henry scat is a little bit autistic.. before anyone jumps on me for "taking the piss" out of people with autism, i don't mean that as an insult - it just strikes me as very bizarre (not to mention frustrating) that he can't seem to comprehend the notion of philosophical arguments or faith.. he literally cannot grasp that some things in this life don't have any basis in fact/statistics, and just "are"..

i'm not on about things like his protestations that we aren't omnivores, etc. - clearly he has provided cogent arguments for many of his beliefs in this regard.. i mean the fact that he refuses to accept abstract reasons for things, the main one being that people eat meat because they like it.. this is reason enough, whether he likes it or not - one does not have to justify and document every single action one makes in life..

why do you get out of bed in the morning?
because i have to go to work.
why do you have to go to work?
because i need to earn a wage.
why do you need to earn a wage?
to pay for goods and services.
why do you need goods and services?

ad nauseum

I must say that that is a grossly unfair comment.

The title of the thread is 'The moral argument of eating meat and dairy'. 'Because i like it' is not a moral argument, in fact it is hardly an argument at all.

Henryscat clearly has strongly held views on the subject, many people clearly do not. People who eat meat without feeling they have to justify it are entitled to do so, but questioning the moral basis for it is a valid exercise.

Having said that, i am just about to have a ham sandwich.

why do you get out of bed in the morning?
because i have to go to work.
why do you have to go to work?
because i need to earn a wage.
why do you need to earn a wage?

Click to expand...

To buy some sausages. Yum yum.
I don't believe in God. There's just not enough substance for me to take that leap of faith I'm afraid. That doesn't mean I'd ever expect anyone that does believe in god to explain why the believe. Good luck to them. The way I see it is that so long as we have a modicum of respect for what we chose to believe (or disbelieve) there's no harm in it. Different views keep the world balanced, until we start expecting people to change their views to match our own.
Keep knocking 7 bells out of each other guys, it makes for entertaining reading. Just don't take it personally.

Moral argument is a strange concept though, as my morals aren't yours. As an example I could talk about the moral argument of the death penalty, as I can see that as a moral dilema. I can't see eating meat as one, I eat it because I like meat and can't see a moral issue with doing so. I just accept that my carnivorous ways mean lots of animals are slaughtered (sometimes inhumanely) just to put meat on my plate. I have no issue with this, I guess that means I'm in the wrong thread?

Actually Tek, I think your morals probably do preclude eating meat, it's just that you've put meat eating into its own little box in your mind, just as the majority of people do - and are consequently inconsistent.

Would you kill your pets for food? If not why not? Why would it be wrong? Why is it wrong to harm another person?

This site is very interesting, and I would say explains the attitudes displayed in some recent posts:

www.carnism.com

Perhaps have a read?

henryscat said:

Actually Tek, I think your morals probably do preclude eating meat, it's just that you've put meat eating into its own little box in your mind, just as the majority of people do - and are consequently inconsistent.

Would you kill your pets for food? If not why not? Why would it be wrong? Why is it wrong to harm another person?

Click to expand...

We've covered this one before haven't we? I see pets and cattle as completely seperate entities, even if they are the same genetically. I would never eat your pet, I see that as wrong, but I would eat your cattle. Even if your pet was a cow, it wouldn't matter to me. I know many people will see this as inconsistent but I don't, I see the intent of the animal rather than the animal itself. If you raised something and cared for it as a member of the family how can I kill it and eat it? If it was raised as food then it only exists to be food, and I am fine with that.

Like I said, my morals aren't yours so its hard to compare our individual stances in a moral way. There is no law, no right and wrong, just popular opinion and personal feeling.

tek-monkey said:

We've covered this one before haven't we? I see pets and cattle as completely seperate entities, even if they are the same genetically.

Click to expand...

Your answer pretty much proves my point. On what basis do you see them as "completely separate entities"? How do you draw the distinction? What criteria are you applying?

I would never eat your pet, I see that as wrong,

Click to expand...

What specifically makes it wrong?

I know many people will see this as inconsistent but I don't, I see the intent of the animal rather than the animal itself.

Click to expand...

Can you rationalise and explain how you think you are being consistent?
If you raised something and cared for it as a member of the family how can I kill it and eat it? If it was raised as food then it only exists to be food, and I am fine with that.

Like I said, my morals aren't yours

Click to expand...

You won't kill a "pet" - the only difference is I consistently apply that to other animals and you don't. You also ignored my other questions, which is also very telling.

db said:

he literally cannot grasp that some things in this life don't have any basis in fact/statistics, and just "are"..

Click to expand...

Meat eating is a violent but hidden ideology - you refer to it as just being, but it isn't.

Withnail said:

I must say that that is a grossly unfair comment.

The title of the thread is 'The moral argument of eating meat and dairy'. 'Because i like it' is not a moral argument, in fact it is hardly an argument at all.

Click to expand...

I can only conclude that db feels threatened by his world view being questioned in any depth.

henryscat said:

I can only conclude that db feels threatened by his world view being questioned in any depth.

Click to expand...

given that you're the one reacting with such fevered enthusiam in this thread, i think a more correct conclusion would be that you are frustrated because i (and others) are not threatened by these questions - people have stated over and over, many times, that we're aware of the arguments against meat farming, and the suffering they might endure, but we couldn't give a shit

there are our morals.
there is our argument.

> *

Often aggressive / offensive type of reactions such as yours are an indication of knowing that your argument lacks substance, which is a reasonable conclusion since you have yet to articulate a constructive response to anything said.

Mikinton said:

And why should he?

Click to expand...

If he cannot constructively explain his stance, then it is without foundation. If you kill and abuse animals either indirectly or directly, then you have an obligation to be able to justify it - otherwise why do you do it?

Personally, Henryscat, I find your many arguments irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Specifically which ones and why? Dismissing arguments as "irrelevant" is a different thing to disagreeing, which again suggests hiding from the inconsistencies in your own actions.

henryscat said:

Your answer pretty much proves my point. On what basis do you see them as "completely separate entities"? How do you draw the distinction? What criteria are you applying?

Click to expand...

My own morals, I thought that was the point?

henryscat said:

What specifically makes it wrong?

Click to expand...

See previous answer.

henryscat said:

Can you rationalise and explain how you think you are being consistent?
If you raised something and cared for it as a member of the family how can I kill it and eat it? If it was raised as food then it only exists to be food, and I am fine with that.

Click to expand...

I thought we were talking morals, not rationality?

henryscat said:

You won't kill a "pet" - the only difference is I consistently apply that to other animals and you don't. You also ignored my other questions, which is also very telling.

Click to expand...

Of course I wouldn't kill a pet, pets aren't food to me. A quick re-read makes me think you are talking about harming another person? If so then yes, without a shadow of a doubt, if they threatened me or mine.

tek-monkey said:

My own morals, I thought that was the point?

Click to expand...

No. You're evading the question. Which proves my point.....

I'll ask again: On what basis do you see them as "completely separate entities"? How do you draw the distinction? What criteria are you applying?

Clue: the answer is not your "morals". What specific characteristics are you using to make your distinction?

I thought we were talking morals, not rationality?

Click to expand...

You're using diversion tactics - answer the question. You're being dishonest with yourself by avoiding it.

Of course I wouldn't kill a pet, pets aren't food to me.

Click to expand...

This starts to get to the point - so you regard some animals as "food". Explain how you arrive at this arbitary categorisation and explain how having arrived at it, killing animals in one category is justified but in the other category is not. You continually evade this.

A quick re-read makes me think you are talking about harming another person?

Click to expand...

I mentioned this to explore your thinking and you haven't really answered this either.

What have you to be afraid of by actually answering the questions I've posed honestly? The only answer I can come up with, and it applies to a lot of the population, is that it would start to expose gaping inconsistencies that you wish to actively avoid.

If an animal is bred for food then it wouldn't exist without us using it for food, I have mentioned this before. If it is solely bred for food, why not eat it? It serves no other purpose other than using up valuable crop land, would pigs still exist if we didn't use them? Cows? Of course they wouldn't outside of zoos.

You accuse me of evading the questions but you seem to be ignoring my answers. You can't expect me to judge myself on your moral stance, I don't follow your moral compass so your thoughts are irrelevant. I like meat, it tastes nice, I don't care that animals die to feed me. You may as well ask me to moralise swatting a fly, I just don't give a **** in the grand scheme of things. The problem on this planet is not what we farm, its how much we over-breed. Anyone who has more children than are needed to replace themselves and their partner are the people causing the worlds ills in my eye, not those who love a nice rare steak.

You talk of gaping inconsistencies, is every vegetable and fruit you eat grown organically and sourced locally? If not chances are you are promoting bad working conditions, the transport of the items causes ecological damage, if you buy from supermarkets you promote companies that avoid taxes. Yet if you do none of these you are richer by far than the average earner as food costs are prohibitive for someone on the average wage doing this, and as such can't take the moral high ground with someone that does not have your resources at their disposal. If you drive a car you are ruining the environment, hell even if you stick to the bus it uses more resources than a car merely shared between whatever passengers are on there. Is all your electricity renewable, and do you not have gas in your home? If you do, you are raping the worlds resources which are far less replenishable than a few million cows. Do you own a smart phone, or pretty much any electronic device made in the far east? Just existing can be proven in some way to cause harm to someone else.

If I can do all the above, and like nearly everyone in this country I do, what makes you think I care at all about the life of a pig? I expect you to justify yourself against every point made or I shall assume you are avoiding the question in a telling way and thereby justifying my own position on the matter.

henryscat said:

If he cannot constructively explain his stance, then it is without foundation. If you kill and abuse animals either indirectly or directly, then you have an obligation to be able to justify it - otherwise why do you do it?

Click to expand...

why do you exist? why are you on this planet? you have an obligation to justify it - otherwise why do you do it?

henryscat said:

No. You're evading the question.

Click to expand...

no, that's your speciality.. if anyone could be arsed to read over the 22 pages of this thread, they would see time and time again how you pick and choose what you respond to, ignoring all the rebuttals that you can't handle.. this leads to people repeating themselves over and over and over and over and over and over again, and it is that that causes people to get riled up and "aggressive"..

several dozen times, people have said words to the effect of "fair enough henryscat, you have made some excellent points and whilst i will never agree with your point of view i appreciate that you are passionate about this subject and i can see your reasons for believing such".. you, however, categorically refuse to do the same..

in your eyes, there is no "moral argument" here - "moral argument" implies a degree of subjectivity (i.e. one's morals), whereas you seem to think that this argument is absolute, objective, black & white, and has a right and wrong answer..

it doesn't..

i don't have to justify the life of a delicious pig any more than you have to justify your existence on this planet..

db said:

why do you exist? why are you on this planet? you have an obligation to justify it - otherwise why do you do it?


no, that's your speciality.. if anyone could be arsed to read over the 22 pages of this thread, they would see time and time again how you pick and choose what you respond to, ignoring all the rebuttals that you can't handle.. this leads to people repeating themselves over and over and over and over and over and over again, and it is that that causes people to get riled up and "aggressive"..

several dozen times, people have said words to the effect of "fair enough henryscat, you have made some excellent points and whilst i will never agree with your point of view i appreciate that you are passionate about this subject and i can see your reasons for believing such".. you, however, categorically refuse to do the same..

in your eyes, there is no "moral argument" here - "moral argument" implies a degree of subjectivity (i.e. one's morals), whereas you seem to think that this argument is absolute, objective, black & white, and has a right and wrong answer..

it doesn't..

i don't have to justify the life of a delicious pig any more than you have to justify your existence on this planet..

Click to expand...

Whilst I disagree with your previous post re 'autism' I think this pretty much summarises what I think.