The Immorality Of Eating Meat When There Are Vegi Alternatives Do People Care?

a reply to: ZombieWoof

Dear ZombieWoof:

If you give a pig the opportunity to be clean, it will. Most pigs are kept in small pens and aren't able to get away from their own wastes. Wild pigs don't live in their own wastes any more than other animals do, and a domestic pig in an enclosure that is either cleaned often enough or is large enough to allow it to avoid its own wastes, will do so. Also, pigs sunburn just like people do, and they instinctively use mud (as do many other animals) as a 'sunscreen.' Put them under a roof or shade and they won't wallow in mud, either.

On the one hand (it is apparent) that most people eat meat for one of two reasons...either, because they are culturally inured - or because their physical make-up requires it.
Human does not NEED meat to survive (except in the situations where it is required).
The appeal to 'need' (on the whole) is a furphie. If this were the case, vegetarians would be dropping dead in droves. Vegan diets are particularly troublesome, though.

Irrespective of the childish 'plants feel pain, so that is immoral'...as another poster has pointed out - you can't cut a leg off a cow, and have its leg grow back...plants, when plucked for food, regrow...cows legs don't.

Mostly all of the long term vegos I know, stick to a basic rule...if you can get nourishment from it, without killing it (i.e. Eggs & milk) it fulfills the precept of not having to kill to survive, and provides all necessary nutrition...again, all long term (and sensible vegos) I know are not pasty-faced, no-muscled or jack-dumb.

I appreciate the sentiment of thanking the animal for providing its being to feed human...many cultures practice this (doesn't need to have religious connotations either)...

I appreciate the meat-eater who goes out of thier way to acquire thier meat from reputable, un-chemicalised sources...the gist of the OP (as I see it) addresses an industry (and by proxy the humans that consume) that is (on the whole) catering to a preference that is contributing to damage done to the atmosphere. Production methods, fertilising agents (used to feed livestock), transport and storage have created (complex and troublesome as it is) a situation that requires certain measures to mitigate the lowered air quality for the children of your children...as far as I'm concerned, that is an issue of morality to other future humans.

Å99

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

"Animals" is a broad term.
Covering a vast number of very different creatures.
Which includes humans despite our egocentric nature.
Whether you say "animals" do or don't posess sentience you are incorrect as you are going to be using a false generalization.

a reply to: hellobruce

I remember something about negative proof being impossible in anything but small scale questions anyway.
Lord is just using the question to derail disagreement.

a reply to: hhott

I won't call it objectively horrible.
But, to me, it subjectively is.
Eating cats and dogs.
I will never intentionally eat cats or dogs unless survival depended upon it.
I was raised to empathize with them.
The thought turns my stomach.

But I'm different in that I don't expect everyone to live by my opinions.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Its not a religious based thread period.

This thread is dealing with the morality of not accepting alternatives reguardless of how advanced they may become some may always want to eat real animal flesh.

As to your go debate with animals thats just being silly, animals have no choice in what they eat, they dont have vegi foods now do they, nor do they have agriculture to grow vast amounts of food, not even worth a serious response.

Thank you for those clarifications.

The only definition for morality or ethics which you have presented thus far is the "Golden Rule," so I have to assume that is the basis of morality for this discussion. In other words, your position is that I shouldn't kill and eat animals if I don't want them (or others) to kill and eat me. Is that correct?

Again, I submit that the golden rule carries implied understanding that it is a guideline for how we treat other humans - those who are capable of relating to or treating us in the same ways we treat them. It does not, therefore, apply to animals who don't have the capacity to understand right and wrong. I think you missed the point that I was trying to make as you said my suggestion to debate the meat-eating animals was 'silly.' I was trying to have you see that because you can't debate this issue or any other with an animal, that's exactly why the golden rule doesn't apply.

What, then, is the basis for the assumption that killing an animal to eat it is immoral or wrong? Don't you find it ironic that, according to science, you wouldn't have the mental capacity to consider the issue if your ancestors hadn't eaten meat? (That is to say, our development of a larger and more complex brain was dependent on a food source exceptionally high in protein and fat: meat.)

Human beings, like the greater apes, are evolved/designed to be omnivores. Omnivores eat meat. Herbivores have different teeth than we do, and they have different digestive systems which can more effectively utilize plant matter for nutrition. We don't have the physiology to be herbivores. Eating at least some meat is part of what we're supposed to do. Eliminating meat from the omnivore diet leads to nutritional deficiencies and illness.

If there were a natural and nutritional alternative to animal flesh which provided all of the nutrition and trace nutrients the human body needs, I'd be happy to switch. But there isn't. Unfermented soy products cause all sorts of problems for both male and female, and severe problems for children. Other meat alternatives contain chemicals, artificial substances, and many are high in the refined carbohydrates which are (imo) responsible for most of the health problems affecting people in "civilized" or first-world countries.

A bit less than 2 years ago, my late husband had all of his teeth pulled and got dentures. The dentures didn't fit correctly, and he couldn't chew well, which led to him eliminating nearly all meat from his diet. He became anemic and quite ill as a result. I, too, tend to run anemic, and my doctor(s) have repeatedly advised me to eat more meat (specifically organ meat) to correct the problem. And - it works. I eat some liver on a regular basis and presto! - no more anemia. And liver doesn't have the nasty side effects that iron pills - the other alternative - do.

I used to personally keep and raise both chickens and rabbits for meat, and I personally dispatched them when it was time in the most humane manner that I could. Prior to that time, they were well-treated and well cared for. My chickens were free range and not even fenced in, which meant that the coyotes and bobcats got almost as many of them as I did.

That's how the world works. That's how human beings work. We eat an omnivorous diet, including meat, to support a larger and more complex brain. I honestly don't see how morality enters into it.

I do think that the poor treatment of animals in the food industry is a moral issue, and that animals we raise for food should be able to be healthy and "happy" in an environment that is normal for that animal until their time comes. But you or me choosing not to eat meat isn't going to change any of that, and the practices could change to be humane without eliminating the production of animals for meat.

originally posted by: akushla99
On the one hand (it is apparent) that most people eat meat for one of two reasons...either, because they are culturally inured - or because their physical make-up requires it.

Human does not NEED meat to survive (except in the situations where it is required).

The appeal to 'need' (on the whole) is a furphie. If this were the case, vegetarians would be dropping dead in droves. Vegan diets are particularly troublesome, though.



Irrespective of the childish 'plants feel pain, so that is immoral'...as another poster has pointed out - you can't cut a leg off a cow, and have its leg grow back...plants, when plucked for food, regrow...cows legs don't.



Mostly all of the long term vegos I know, stick to a basic rule...if you can get nourishment from it, without killing it (i.e. Eggs & milk) it fulfills the precept of not having to kill to survive, and provides all necessary nutrition...again, all long term (and sensible vegos) I know are not pasty-faced, no-muscled or jack-dumb.



I appreciate the sentiment of thanking the animal for providing its being to feed human...many cultures practice this (doesn't need to have religious connotations either)...



I appreciate the meat-eater who goes out of thier way to acquire thier meat from reputable, un-chemicalised sources...the gist of the OP (as I see it) addresses an industry (and by proxy the humans that consume) that is (on the whole) catering to a preference that is contributing to damage done to the atmosphere. Production methods, fertilising agents (used to feed livestock), transport and storage have created (complex and troublesome as it is) a situation that requires certain measures to mitigate the lowered air quality for the children of your children...as far as I'm concerned, that is an issue of morality to other future humans.



Å99

Wow your making alot of sense, good for you I agree with what your saying and I have never met a weak vegitarian its kind of an oxymoron.

As to industry its not going to be sustainable forever considering simple things like extreme weather. However indoor farms are a possibility, which sounds horrirific.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: nenothtu

How big is this spear? I keep getting this image of a guy going after a bear with a spear and can't stop laughing. Yes, I'm aware of having a weird sense of humor. Look at my name on here lol. Anywho, where would you stab it? Would you go for its eyes or try to get a lucky shot in its mouth or through the throat?

The blade is about 18" long, and around 3" wide at the widest part. It has "wings" to keep the quarry from running up the shaft and getting you (boars will do that - they're mean little cusses). It was made by "Cold Steel", if that gives you an idea of the looks of the boar spear, and is honed razor sharp. I made the shaft custom - I wasn't too happy with the stock spear shaft provided.

As for targets, you're sort of limited in choices when one is running at you. The eyes are too small and the head moves too quick for a certain shot, not to mention the fact that a bear's skull is designed so that blows to the skull area "skip" off of it, so the head isn't a good idea in general, mouth included. Imagine my surprise if I gored it in the mouth, and the blasted thing bit down and took my toy away! I'm guessing that the throat/upper chest area would be my best bet. I'm not as nimble at skipping around for a rib shot as I used to be.

Now, for the most part, any such occurrence would have been for the purpose of buying my missus time to get away, rather than any he-man mortal combat scenario. Still, If it happens, I will eat the bear, just like I said... unless the bear eats ME.

I WILL of course cook it first! Don't believe all the stories they tell about me around here!

originally posted by: hhott

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Its not a religious based thread period.



This thread is dealing with the morality of not accepting alternatives reguardless of how advanced they may become some may always want to eat real animal flesh.



As to your go debate with animals thats just being silly, animals have no choice in what they eat, they dont have vegi foods now do they, nor do they have agriculture to grow vast amounts of food, not even worth a serious response.

Thank you for those clarifications.



The only definition for morality or ethics which you have presented thus far is the "Golden Rule," so I have to assume that is the basis of morality for this discussion. In other words, your position is that I shouldn't kill and eat animals if I don't want them (or others) to kill and eat me. Is that correct?



Again, I submit that the golden rule carries implied understanding that it is a guideline for how we treat other humans - those who are capable of relating to or treating us in the same ways we treat them. It does not, therefore, apply to animals who don't have the capacity to understand right and wrong. I think you missed the point that I was trying to make as you said my suggestion to debate the meat-eating animals was 'silly.' I was trying to have you see that because you can't debate this issue or any other with an animal, that's exactly why the golden rule doesn't apply.



What, then, is the basis for the assumption that killing an animal to eat it is immoral or wrong? Don't you find it ironic that, according to science, you wouldn't have the mental capacity to consider the issue if your ancestors hadn't eaten meat? (That is to say, our development of a larger and more complex brain was dependent on a food source exceptionally high in protein and fat: meat.)



Human beings, like the greater apes, are evolved/designed to be omnivores. Omnivores eat meat. Herbivores have different teeth than we do, and they have different digestive systems which can more effectively utilize plant matter for nutrition. We don't have the physiology to be herbivores. Eating at least some meat is part of what we're supposed to do. Eliminating meat from the omnivore diet leads to nutritional deficiencies and illness.



If there were a natural and nutritional alternative to animal flesh which provided all of the nutrition and trace nutrients the human body needs, I'd be happy to switch. But there isn't. Unfermented soy products cause all sorts of problems for both male and female, and severe problems for children. Other meat alternatives contain chemicals, artificial substances, and many are high in the refined carbohydrates which are (imo) responsible for most of the health problems affecting people in "civilized" or first-world countries.



A bit less than 2 years ago, my late husband had all of his teeth pulled and got dentures. The dentures didn't fit correctly, and he couldn't chew well, which led to him eliminating nearly all meat from his diet. He became anemic and quite ill as a result. I, too, tend to run anemic, and my doctor(s) have repeatedly advised me to eat more meat (specifically organ meat) to correct the problem. And - it works. I eat some liver on a regular basis and presto! - no more anemia. And liver doesn't have the nasty side effects that iron pills - the other alternative - do.



I used to personally keep and raise both chickens and rabbits for meat, and I personally dispatched them when it was time in the most humane manner that I could. Prior to that time, they were well-treated and well cared for. My chickens were free range and not even fenced in, which meant that the coyotes and bobcats got almost as many of them as I did.

That's how the world works. That's how human beings work. We eat an omnivorous diet, including meat, to support a larger and more complex brain. I honestly don't see how morality enters into it.



I do think that the poor treatment of animals in the food industry is a moral issue, and that animals we raise for food should be able to be healthy and "happy" in an environment that is normal for that animal until their time comes. But you or me choosing not to eat meat isn't going to change any of that, and the practices could change to be humane without eliminating the production of animals for meat.

I appreciate your personal story its a good one.

We humans are just the same as animals yet are more advanced mentally, we arent savages that eat anything, and we dont eat each other. In history yes we had to eat meat during certain historical periods out of need. We no longer are living in caves, and can mass produce food for everyone on a global scale. The need is no longer there, only the want remains, we do it out of the desire to eat animals and nothing more than that.

As technology improves over the years our civilization will be able to create new food sources, like through 3d printing, and we may eventually develop artificial foods which cannot be distinguished from the real animal. Not only that the food may be super healthy for us to eat, catered to our specific personalized health.

Should we reach such a pinnacle there will still be some folks that want to eat real meat period.

As to morality its not just based on the golden rule, I droped the definition some pages back meaning it covers all areas of morality as people see fit to discuss. Some have even gone the religious route, but to each thier own.

When I think of morality I think of right and wrong, what we accept to be a good thing or a bad thing.

Can people survive and be healthy without ever eating meat, yes.
Can people use meat to aid thier health yes.
Can people use natural herbs and vegi's to aid thier health yes.
Is meat necessary no.
Is animal suffering necessary no.
Do we have to kill animals to survive no.
Are there alternatives out there to killing animals yes.
Will people ever choose the alternatives over killing the animals and causing them suffering most no, some will.
Do people want to kill animals because they like to eat them yes.
Do we need to eat them not at all, we want to, theres the difference.
Is it considered morally wrong to kill an animal if you dont need to, yes.
Is it considered wrong to kill an animal if you own it like a dog or cat and eat it, yes.
Is it considered wrong to kill a socially accepted farm animal like a goat, chicken, or pig and eat it no society says its totally fine.

Is causing unneeded suffering considered morally acceptible no. Why? Because its wrong period.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Is causing unneeded suffering considered morally acceptible no. Why? Because its wrong period.

Yet you continue to post while knowing it's "wrong period".

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Is causing unneeded suffering considered morally acceptible no. Why? Because its wrong period.

Yet you continue to post while knowing it's "wrong period".

Just imagine I said something witty and enlightening like holy off topic jack in the box hole in a doughnut Batman this guy doesnt know what morality even means nor what it means to cause needless suffering and how that could be seen as immoral even in the eyes of those who are doing it!

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Is this over your head or are you continually side-stepping the issue? Your morals are not everyone's morals. You have acknowledged this. If it's "immoral" for you then fine, don't do it.

Why do you seem to expect others to live by your morals?

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

and here are seven reasons that eating meat is a healthy lifestyle.

authoritynutrition.com...

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Is this over your head or are you continually side-stepping the issue? Your morals are not everyone's morals. You have acknowledged this. If it's "immoral" for you then fine, don't do it.



Why do you seem to expect others to live by your morals?

If you have no sense of morality why enter a discussion based on morality lolz. . . .Some people. . . .

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

and here are seven reasons that eating meat is a healthy lifestyle.

authoritynutrition.com...

Get your god# blasphemy out of here, this is a fundamentalist Christian morals only zone

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



and here are seven reasons that eating meat is a healthy lifestyle.



authoritynutrition.com...

7 BS reasons sure but none based on reality and none belong in a discussion on morality period.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Okay lets talk morals.
Is it moral to cut children in the name of religion when born?.
Is it moral to force children into religion?.

See we all have different morals eating meat to me is part of the eco system on earth, I think it is morally right to eat cows pigs sheep because it helps them as a specie.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord
Speaking of bull droppings.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Is this over your head or are you continually side-stepping the issue? Your morals are not everyone's morals. You have acknowledged this. If it's "immoral" for you then fine, don't do it.



Why do you seem to expect others to live by your morals?

If you have no sense of morality why enter a discussion based on morality lolz. . . .Some people. . . .

Because I do have some morals. Why deflect and attack rather than try to answer the question? Are you having trouble reconciling your 'superposition' on the issue?

Why do you say someone has "No sense of morality" when the truth is they just have different sense of morality than you do?

What happened to this?

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Dont get me wrong its your choices and lives do what you will, however I do enjoy philosophical topics that get people thinking.

I am not pushing my lifestyle choice, to each thier own, do what you feel good with, follow your bliss.

Well?

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Speaking of bull droppings.

They speak of morality in the videos but the videos dont address the big elephant in the room which is we dont need to eat animals to survive at all. The videos just look like they are downing PETA for protesting animal rights being abused.

If there was no other way for people to survive then it wouldnt be considered unethical or immoral by many, however we do have countless other food sources so many believe the killing of animals to be immoral and unethical, because there is simply no need for it other than taste.