Animals, Eating Meat and Moral Standing

Isn't it a bit narcissistic to claim that others do something just to attempt to have an effect on you?

Good point on checking your sources. I grabbed mushrooms out of my head. I could have as easily choose whole carrots or celery (etc).

Quote:

Being that I don't feel a person's choice to eat or not eat animal product resolves to a singular moral/ethical fulcrum, I don't feel I miss "the point." people may have diverse reasons to make any choice. A person may not eat meat simply because they dislike it. This person is not missing the point.

Here's the thing. When we talk about morality, we talk about those things which fall within morality's scope. Humans obviously fall within this scope, and for my reasons stated, so should animals.

I disagree that indirect reasons are enough for the moral considerability of animals.

If a cat is kicked down the road, it is wrong because the cat is harmed, not because it might make other humans nearby upset. The cat itself has direct standing.

Given then a moral considerability of animals (which is the fundamental issue at hand), the choices we make and how our actions affect animals must be taken into account, if we take their interests to be important.

The reasons you state don't speak to that fundamental issue. In other words, it is poor justification (but don't get me wrong, they are still important for other reasons, nonetheless).

I honestly think that if most people had to catch and kill their own food, most animals would suffer a great deal more than they do now. We leave certain things to the experts for obvious reasons. Hell, most people can't even grow a garden. They'd starve by most that thinking...

tribal existence is over and that our food practices today are in the grocery store or restaurant.

Quote:

Isn't it a bit narcissistic to claim that others do something just to attempt to have an effect on you?

Sorry for not getting back to you fa, but we went to a chickn bake up at Bart Twp.

My only statement is that I as a meatatarian, DIIDNT START THIS THREAD.

This is about the 4th such thread where some wag dofs a toga , stands up on the pedestal and begins the tired old chestnut of how superior you veggiephagiacs are and how animals are our partners on the planet. Thats just rubbish.

I would never think of starting some topic that assumes "moral standing" is at issue with what you eat for lunch.

failures art wrote:

Good point on checking your sources. I grabbed mushrooms out of my head. I could have as easily choose whole carrots or celery (etc).

And they would have had the same problem. Neither carrots nor celery produce vitamin B12 from their own metabolism, or through any bacteria that live in them. If they contain any vitamin B12, it's through supplements they ingest through the soil they grow in. You might as well eat the supplement yourself. That way, at least you know you've eaten it, and how much.

B12 isn't from animals either. It's from bacteria.

Quote:

tribal existence is over and that our food practices today are in the grocery store or restaurant.

Would you deny the chosen dietary habits and laws of populations who dont live like you? Theres ahell of a lot of native populations in the world. (what about farmers?)

We survive on our own lamb and beef. (We dont eat our chickens because they provide us with eggs and entertainment)

Something I keep in my mind I assure you. On my regular doctor visits, I get blood work done to see how my nutrient levels are. I've not ever had a hard time meeting all levels. All nutrients in tolerance.

I don't deny anyone anything in this culture or another.

tribal existence is over and that our food practices today are in the grocery store or restaurant.

Quote:

Eating meat lies outside of the field of ethics, I would think. Eating meat, for many animals and men, is an act of survival, not choice. That we inject our own scruples into the act is to afford luxury

Eating meat is not necessary. More than 700 million tons of grain and corn, not to mention 1/3 of the global soy (250 million tons) supply is used to feed factory farmed animals. Now keep in mind that animals can only turn a small fraction of such feed calories into meat calories. The result is the opposite of what you claim. By relying on meat you are supporting a vastly inefficient practice, when such feed could be supplied to the impoverished 1.4 billion humans.

Quote:

That said, I am an animal lover, who hates to see animals getting mistreated. If I had to personally kill for meat, I would down lots more vegetables. But I don't view my sentiments from a moral viewpoint, because we all are food, in one way or another.

I find this an interesting passage. If you had to kill for meat, you wouldn't eat as much. Yet instead you will pay for someone to do it for you, because in essence, that is the logical outcome. In addition, you are against animal cruelty, yet factory farming is well known to cause quite alot of suffering for animals, but yet you will pay for someone to do that as well. Where is the basic integrity in that?

Your point about the scope of morality is fundamentally flawed in my viewpoint. Would you be pre pared to allow humans to be farmed for meat under the same conditions? If not, why not?

So, no, eating meat is not a necessary condition, it's a choice.

You say that plants are not sentient. You say that they do not feel pleasure, pain, happiness or regret. You say that they are not social beings. You know this how? Without a reasonable basis for these ipse dixit claims on your part (which you have not provided), you are speaking ex cathedra, and your claims have no more merit than anyone else's opinion.

I honestly think that if most people had to catch and kill their own food, most animals would suffer a great deal more than they do now.