Before I begin I'd like to refer my opponent to the literal definition of morality. Rules are rules, and bending or breaking of rules
constitutes a failure to achieve the goals intended by the moral system, that is: Morality.
I understand the literal definition of morality and along with that I understand is that in moral debates, or ethical debates as they are synonymous,
there are MANY views on what constitutes morality. In this debate I have chosen tot take the middle path, the Dào, the Golden Mean. As such I contend
that your definition of morality would essentially boil down to moral absolutism. You are attempting to define a universal truth that is blind to the
diversity of realities in the human world. In contrast to this I am arguing the philosophy of moral relativism, which again is the path of balance as
it seeks to incorporate ALL ideologies and views into its theory; essentially creating a harmonic balance, allowing for variation where variation is
According to you the Maasai of Africa would be a less moral society as their stable foods are meat, animal fat, animal blood, and animal milk. There
is a Maasai saying that is resoundingly similar to the bible quote I provided, it is:
God gave us cattle and grass. Without grass there are no
cattle, and without cattle there are no Maasai".
To you the Maasai are morally inferior. You believe that their consumption of meat makes them some how morally compromised because they are rational
beings who should know better than to slay an animal. However to the Maasai eating animals is essential to life. With out a grazer (plant eating
animal) to transform producer (life form that transforms solar energy into sugars) they would be unable to survive in their ancestral lands. What is
more they believe that their God, undoubtedly their primary source of morality, GAVE them the cattle to possess, to consume, to survive.
First, according to your response it seems I may have slightly confused the issue of omnivore in my last post. When I said we are omnivores who
evolved eating meat I was not saying we specialized in the consumption of meat, only that it was a part of our diet. Omnivore by definition means that
we are not vegetarian or carnivore but they we play both fields, so to speak. The vegetarian proponent and doctor John McArdle notes that the key to
understanding our omnivore past lies in several characteristics of our physiology. He notes that it is not the length of the intestine but total
surface area which is more impacted by the inner texture over the length that helps to determine diet type. What is more he asserts that the human
intestine is clearly in-between that of a carnivore and a vegetarian, thus an omnivore.
McArdle continues to show other examples such as: archeological records, jaws and teeth, cell types, internal “fermenting vats”, and salivary
glands, all of which he contends that clearly demonstrate that humans are, and have been for a long time, omnivores. He concludes:
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that
humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and
health concerns.” link
As he him self states, there is really no debating whether or not humans evolved eating meat, there is ample proof that this is the case, and as a
vegetarian advocate himself he says it is simply bets to move onto other issues that have more traction is debating the issue of vegetarianism.
In your last post Loki you talked a fair bit about moral, ethical, or spiritual philosophies to demonstrate your point, that vegetarianism is morally
superior to the consumption of meat.
Once again in this endeavor you have pointed out the need to hold animals to a higher level than other life forms. You have mad insinuations that
they are some how to be grated more respect than other life forms, yet you have not touched on why. One again I point out the bible quote “All Flesh
is Grass”. We are all part of the same cycle of energy, life, growth, death, and decay.
The distinctions you are drawing in this debate are not uncommon in human philosophy; however they are not alone in philosophical thought. Animals are
often given more moral considerations than other life forms because they bear more of a resemblance to US. We see them as reflections of ourselves.
How often we see them as part of families, with friends, and relatives. We project onto them the SAME rational and emotional lives that we EXPERIENCE
Yet we do not do this for plants. Although an oak tree grows next to its parent and amongst is brothers and sisters we do not project the concept of
family onto them. Although plants have been shown to react to abuse, disease, and damage we do not consider this reaction PAIN.
My point is simple. Arguing that vegetarianism is morally superior based on the fact that is takes lives is biased and skewed by the human tendency
to project human qualities onto things that we can see ourselves in.
Furthermore, in the field of moral and ethical philosophy there is the common tendency for moral and ethical principles to directly conflict with one
another. I will never forget my first ethics class. It was infuriating. Every other day we delved into a new ethical philosophy and each time the
contradictions were rampant.
“Question 1: Are there any moral systems in which eating meat is a prerequisite to "morality"?”
Honestly the only one that I can think of, off the top of my head, is Rastafarianism.
”Question 2: Do you have any proof that moderate to low consumption of meat is in any way better for your body than a completely vegetarian
I have no proof that, in general terms, eating a balanced diet containing meat is BETTER for the body than strict vegetarian diets. But once again my
argument is not about BETTER it is about EQUAL. My theme in this debate is not to argue superiority, that is your task Loki, I am arguing the ideology
Q#1: Do you believe that vegetarianism is, without discrimination, that is globally, morally superior and that any person on the globe who consumes
meat is less moral than those who do not?
Q#2: What is it that qualifies Animals for more moral considerations than all other life forms?
Q#3: When you say “By this moral system, we can see that we have been endowed by evolution with the capacity for compassion, and it behooves us as
morally right humans to exercise this compassion for our fellow mammals” are you saying that mammals deserve more respect than say fish, reptiles,
birds, or insects?