Attack my argument: morality of eating meat

@farmerman,

I find that my hesitation about eating meat has only to do with animals that I can (and do) anthropomorphize. I could not eat a pet of any kind even though I know they are nutritious and tasty. But my hesitation is not completly moral. The universe generates and extinguishes lives all the time, either by means of old age or a carnivore's nature (a hungry lion cannot choose not to feed off a zebra). Yet I can't imagine saying that the universe is moral or immoral. Since I can't relate to fish or fowl I eat them without reservation. Once in a while I eat beef and pork and feel at worst like a content immoralist.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I could not eat a pet of any kind even though I know they are nutritious and tasty.

Nowhere did I equate the eating of meat with eating of pets. Im so firm about NOT eating pets that I really dont know whether they are nutritious and tasty as you assert.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

1. Only rational beings have rights

There is such a thing as animal rights.

Quote:

2. Only humans are rational beings

That is not true. Many animals have clearly demonstrated reasoning capabilities. Humans are perhaps the least rational beings I know of.

Quote:

3. Therefore, no animal has any rights that a human is bound to respect

And here you prove my objection to 2.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Some cultures do. It's stringy, but if they use very young dogs, it's not bad. They are raised just like any other livestock. They may be petted while small, but only the best male and female of any litter are kept--the rest are slaughtered.

Hi Setanta - uh - way to take a point out of context.

The context of the post was both of human empathy for animals (which is in my post and the post I replied to), and the concept of animal rights (a point that I've been discussing).

In that context I was obviously aiming the 'why don't we eat out pet dogs' at the audience - which is vastly western, as we don't eat out pet dogs.

And it was also meant to be a personal question (if you have a pet dog_ - why don't you eat your pet dog?...and if you don't - why don't your friends who have a pet dog, eat their pet dog?

By the way - I live in Australia.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

1. Only rational beings have rights
2. Only humans are rational beings
3. Therefore, no animal has any rights that a human is bound to respect

Accepting this syllogism for the sake of the argument---how, if at all, do we avoid the following syllogism?

1. Only rational beings have rights.
2. Humans with sufficiently-severe mental disabilities are not rational beings.
3. Therefore, some humans have no rights that able-minded humans are bound to respect.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You may have heard the story of the lack of sales of Heinz canned baby food when they first went on sale in Africa. Non-readers recognized the contents of tins by the picture on the label...in this case "baby" !

1 Reply

@fresco,

They too are tasty and nutritous, but that's no reason to eat them.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

But.. those are the two best reasons to eat anything...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Most A2Kers are tasty and nutritous but I would not want to remind a cannibal of that.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I think he got you there Cyr.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I think he did. Wink

0 Replies

I am sure my thoughts have been expressed somewhere, but I am not going back to read the entire thread to see.
Throughout all of nature, one thing eats another. There is no morality to it. It's one of the harsh realities any animal or vegetable is subject to. Feeling moral about it may work on our conscience, but feeling moral is just part of our evolved makeup, for better or worse. Sorrow or revulsion changes nothing. If we all stopped eating meat, there would be animal neglect, cruelty and killing on an unprecedented scale, because they would overpopulate and be destructive and just plain in the way.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Sounds right to me. Morality is essentially a mechanism for maintaining a degree of social order. I'm in favor of it, but ultimately if it is to have more than a social function altruism must be based on compassion, an expression of our love for and identification with one another.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Accepting this syllogism for the sake of the argument---how, if at all, do we avoid the following syllogism?

1. Only rational beings have rights.
2. Humans with sufficiently-severe mental disabilities are not rational beings.
3. Therefore, some humans have no rights that able-minded humans are bound to respect.

Easy. That's not a syllogism.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
1. Only rational beings have rights

There is such a thing as animal rights.

Let me be clear: I was not setting forth my views on the subject, I was just cleaning up the original poster's logic.

That being said, I have no reason to accept your premise that there is such a thing as animal rights -- and certainly not on your say so alone.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
2. Only humans are rational beings

That is not true. Many animals have clearly demonstrated reasoning capabilities. Humans are perhaps the least rational beings I know of.

Again, sez you.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
3. Therefore, no animal has any rights that a human is bound to respect

And here you prove my objection to 2.

Explain.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Easy. That's not a syllogism.

Why not?

And regardless of whether you call it a syllogism or some other word, how do you respond to its content?

2 Replies

@L1n1o,

when in Rome

0 Replies

@Thomas,

To clarify my point, let me rephrase the inferences in the spirit of set theory:

#1: "This is Lassie. Lassie is a dog. Because Lassie is a dog, she is no rational being. Because she is no rational being, Lassie has no rights that I am bound to respect."

#2: "This is Jeff. Jeff is a human, but he has no forebrain. Because Jeff has no forebrain, he is no rational being. Because he is no rational being, Jeff has no rights that I am bound to respect."

If the conclusion of inference #1 is true, then how, if at all, is the conclusion of inference #2 false?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

That being said, I have no reason to accept your premise that there is such a thing as animal rights -- and certainly not on your say so alone.

I don't know how it is where you live, but here in Norway, abusing animals is a criminal offense.

That humans are the least rational beings is just an opinion, of course. But there are many documented cases of animals exhibiting reasoning skills, using human language and solving problems that require thought.

Quote:

Explain.

The notion that we as humans don't have to respect the other life forms on this planet is not rational. There are many who disagree, and what constitutes "rational" is by no means universally defined.

1 Reply

I felt like adding that I do eat meat. For now at least, though the thought of changing to a non-meat diet is growing on me.
That does not mean that I disregard the rights of animals.

1 Reply

Attack my argument: morality of eating meat

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know