That's not the point. It's pretty much a biological fact seeing as how we got canines and digestive systems to accompany this. black and white superiority isirrelevant
No its not...some animals can only be carnivores. Humans unlike these animals are totally capable of being vegans. Some Studies have shown veganism is healthier. So unlike carnivores who can't make moral decisons and whose bodies could not take vegan diet we eat meat only because it tastes good and we justify it based on specisim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
first, how is a quick death (bolt through brain or quick decapitation) unnecessary suffering?
Second, I suggest you look up the expensive tissue hypothesis. How did humans become so encephalized (Brain to body ratio)?
based upon economies of scale that is rarely who it happens or how it will ever be common place. But beyond that any killing of animals for food or hunting is inherently unnnecessary because HUMANS do need to eat animals to survive.
The second part has no bearing on the moral choices we make now...
Last edited by Younggrease : 05-02-2009 at 06:30 PM.
That's not the point. It's pretty much a biological fact seeing as how we got canines and digestive systems to accompany this. black and white superiority isirrelevant
we have an archaic dentition (meaning it is generalized and the evolutionary antecedent of specialized teeth like a horse or a carnivore). Just because its called a canine doesnt really mean much. Baboons have sexually dimorphic canines (males have big ones) used for displays of aggression rather than true dietary needs.
Now, if we had a mouth full of shearing teeth (derived dentition).
No its not...some animals can only be carnivores. Humans unlike these animals are totally capable of being vegans. Some Studies have shown veganism is healthier. So unlike carnivores who can't make moral decisons and whose bodies could not take vegan diet we eat meat only because it tastes good and we justify it based on specisim.
based upon economies of scale that is rarely who it happens or how it will ever be common place. But beyond that any killing of animals for food or hunting is inherently unnnecessary because HUMANS do need to eat animals to survive.
The second part has no bearing on the moral choices we make now...
first of all, meat is widely accepted as a major dietary component of human evolution. in most traditional societies, meats play a major role in supplying the necessary fats and proteins that are much harder to come by in plants. The only vegan societies I can think of (Ill check HRAF later if I remember) are the highly specialized state level caste systems of S. Asia. Hardly a comparison to an ancestral state.
again, why is death unnecessary suffering? Very culturally insensitive of you.
While I do agree that the amount of meat the average american consumes is extremely excessive and environmentally damaging (the best way you can decrease your ecological footprint is to stop eating meat - specifically from the industrial food system), there is a place for it across both human evolution as well as in almost all known societies.
first of all, meat is widely accepted as a major dietary component of human evolution. in most traditional societies, meats play a major role in supplying the necessary fats and proteins that are much harder to come by in plants. The only vegan societies I can think of (Ill check HRAF later if I remember) are the highly specialized state level caste systems of S. Asia. Hardly a comparison to an ancestral state.
again, why is death unnecessary suffering? Very culturally insensitive of you.
While I do agree that the amount of meat the average american consumes is extremely excessive and environmentally damaging (the best way you can decrease your ecological footprint is to stop eating meat - specifically from the industrial food system), there is a place for it across both human evolution as well as in almost all known societies.
traditional arguements about what was relevant then do not make sense when talking about the moral choices we make with the knowledge we have today.
Because animals are sentient they can feel pain. And because they can feel pain they have an interest in living. By killing they animals for food, which is not neccessary, there death causes pain(sufffering) which is unnessary. WE DO NOT NEED TO EAT ANIMALS
Just because something is natural doesnt make it morally acceptable.
I do agree about your points of specism and so forth. But what is morally acceptable and how do we reach a consensus on that? For my part, I dont eat much meat, and most of the meat I eat I killed myself or bought from someone I know. But, again, you are talking about some kind of universal human morality that I dont think exists outside of cultural constructions.
The slope hardly ends at eating hamburgers and bacon though. It's perfectly conceivable for life to exist and survive on an earth that would remain, for the most part, altogether unaffected by human race. Eat berries, sleep on leaves, etc. Right back to a state of nature - the very beginnings of man. That's the ultimate in refraining from inflicting "unnecessary suffering upon animals", and that's what would be necessary to follow this humane treatment principal. We'd have to simply let the world be and leave no negative footprint on the environment, on which every animal's survival utterly depends.
To follow such a principal would lead us right back to as meager - and apparently unattainable - existence as you can imagine. Becoming a vegan seems easy, but that's only committing yourself to a fraction of the cause.
traditional arguements about what was relevant then do not make sense when talking about the moral choices we make with the knowledge we have today.
Because animals are sentient they can feel pain. And because they can feel pain they have an interest in living. By killing they animals for food, which is not neccessary, there death causes pain(sufffering) which is unnessary. WE DO NOT NEED TO EAT ANIMALS
plants cant feel pain? are you sure about that? Invertebrates dont have a CNS and therefore dont feel pain the same as us either. so is it ok to eat them? You are presenting some sort of universal morality but what is it derived from? There is no universal human morality.
The slope hardly ends at eating hamburgers and bacon though. It's perfectly conceivable for life to exist and survive on an earth that would remain, for the most part, altogether unaffected by human race. Eat berries, sleep on leaves, etc. Right back to a state of nature - the very beginnings of man. That's the ultimate in refraining from inflicting "unnecessary suffering upon animals", and that's what would be necessary to follow this humane treatment principal. We'd have to simply let the world be and leave no negative footprint on the environment, on which every animal's survival utterly depends.
To follow such a principal would lead us right back to as meager - and apparently unattainable - existence as you can imagine. Becoming a vegan seems easy, but that's only committing yourself to a fraction of the cause.
You are exagerating the scope of said principal(its actually a little bit more in depth then the two sentences I put forth). A vegan diet would be the endpoint and it consists of more then eating berries. And yes you could still sleep on beds. There is no letting the world be its only that we do use animals as purely a means to human ends. It does not ask that we make human interest subservient but it asks that we understand the animals have interest. Its always gives the tie to a human in a conflict.
You are exagerating the scope of said principal(its actually a little bit more in depth then the two sentences I put forth). A vegan diet would be the endpoint and it consists of more then eating berries. And yes you could still sleep on beds. There is no letting the world be its only that we do use animals as purely a means to human ends. It does not ask that we make human interest subservient but it asks that we understand the animals have interest. Its always gives the tie to a human in a conflict.
why are you preferencing the well being of animals over the well being of ecosystem function upon which all life depends?
plants cant feel pain? are you sure about that? Invertebrates dont have a CNS and therefore dont feel pain the same as us either. so is it ok to eat them? You are presenting some sort of universal morality but what is it derived from? There is no universal human morality.
You are exagerating the scope of said principal(its actually a little bit more in depth then the two sentences I put forth). A vegan diet would be the endpoint and it consists of more then eating berries. And yes you could still sleep on beds. There is no letting the world be its only that we do use animals as purely a means to human ends. It does not ask that we make human interest subservient but it asks that we understand the animals have interest. Its always gives the tie to a human in a conflict.
I'm sure the author elaborates, but would you say the underlying message is that humans have two overlapping obligations; survive and do so while doing as little harm as possible to other sentients? That seems to be the gist of it, although I'm not familiar with the author so perhaps I'm wrong.
My point, which I suppose I didn't clarify in my last post, is that carnivorism only has a direct effect on animal suffering. What about all the ways humans indirectly cause animal suffering? Eating meat is one thing, but it only accounts for a fraction of animal suffering.
Furthermore, why are you preferencing the well being of animals over the well being of ecosystem function upon which all life depends?
If animals didnt want to be eaten, they shouldnt be so tasty. The main defensive mechanism of the South American Spotted Frog is its terrible taste... nothing eats it. Coincidence?
Cows/Pigs/Sheep and other barnyard animals could learn a thing or two from that frog. We are not the problem, they are! Morally, I suppose I can take it from a biblical stance and say god gave man dominion over all the things that creep and crawl on the earth and thus they are a gift to be eaten.
From a secular point, I would try to argue that the large supplement meat products has towards the collective human diet cannot be cutoff because of our dependancy on these animals has fueled the global population and without it we would be unable to support the worlds people (as if we dont have a problem with that now)... thus, it becomes a matter of human survival.
but they do have some sensory perception and may very well have a response (similar to invertebrates that also lack a CNS) to "pain". SO maybe we shouldnt eat them as well. If anything, by restricting yourself from the broad omnivory that has made humans so successful and putting animals on a pedestal, you are being even more divisive in deciding what life is worth preserving
We eat them because we can. I'm sure if a dog was strong enough to eat humans they would. It's part of the chain. You got to do what it ever it takes to survive and eating animals is one of them.
Re: How can we justify eating animals morally?
