I am pretty sure no one will be able to convince me otherwise, but I’m curious to know what you guys think
So, not to go too deep too fast, I think the implication of the word wrong in your title implies a moral argument. To engage the morality of killing animals for food I will rest on two points:
1. There is a lot of moral relativism here to deal with. So, relativistically, I would say animals do it all the time. So, my question here would be is it wrong for those animals as well? Or is there something more wrong about the way we as humans have bred animals specifically for this? If so, would you accept the view that certain animals are born specifically to become food and they wouldn’t have been born otherwise, so ultimately it is morally neutral?
2. Bite the bullet. We can take this argument to the point that you’re still killing a plant to eat, even if it isn’t sentient, but I don’t think we have to. Its sort of a necessary evil. In order to eat the most natural and healthy way I would say animal products are essential. So, it makes sense that we would breed animals specifically for that purpose.
I would say that ultimately these two things add up to a morally neutral decision to eat animals.
In case the counter-argument is that our human gift of sentience AND sapience makes us uniquely able to see the neutrality and choose the “good” option:
Animals are not sapient, and therefore are unable to make the same decision. Or in other words, we cannot form a social contract with animals beyond a master:pet relationship. And since the social contract has no value to them, it shouldn’t hold any value for humans.
Hey! So I’m writing this fairly early in the morning, so forgive me if there are any errors.
“is it okay to kill and eat animals because they do it to each other and wouldn’t think twice about doing it to us also? I’d say yeah” We aren’t the same as animals because of our emotional intelligence, so equalizing our action on their instincts is faulty. So if you think that because animals do something in nature then we should be able to do it too, whether it is upon other humans or animals, so I could hypothetically rape an animal or a human, and under your ideology that would be okay? Animals do it to another all the time! “the system of eating animals appears to be perfectly natural, even for animals of sapience (humans).” Yes, the way we carry out the production of animals is completely like the food-chain mother-earth invented, mass producing them, genetically modifying their bodies, pumping them full of hormones and anti-bacteria fungus is so natural. But I don’t understand why you view nature as an excuse to do something immoral. Something completely natural was owning slaves and was beneficial for the people owning them and for the souths economy, but it was wrong even if it was natural. Can you explain to me why you believe if something is natural then it is morally ok?
(To the next point, I’m glad that you admitted that you don’t care, because, to be honest, that is the only thing that I could see to a substantial argument. Though you would be morally wrong, it doesn’t matter because you wouldn’t care about morals, to begin with.)
” don’t think it’s a crazy leap to say they kill and eat each other, and us, which establishes a relationship of moral neutrality.” The reason animals kill and eat other animals is because of instincts and survival, they don’t have a moral agency like you and I do. Our relationship with animals is dominant because we are highly intelligent, but just because we have the power to hurt sentient beings, doesn’t mean we should. Animals with other animals are morally neutral because it is necessary to their survival and don’t know any better. Our relationship with animals is morally wrong because it’s not necessary for our survival and we know better. A moral neutral decision is wearing a white shirt or wearing your hair up instead of down, it doesn’t involve anyone else. Eating animals involves quite the system of sentient beings. “but it seems to be the most effective choice of relationship on the table.” Most effective choice of relationship? Your right, it is effective, for humans only(but it away it isn’t because it’s destroying our health and environment). A relationship should be beneficial to both parties. But somehow it doesn’t seem possible to just stop eating animals and just eat plants, that’s a relationship, just doesn’t involve animals in a sandwhich.
If your view is that health is only about calories then it’s perfectly fine to eat a plant-based diet with calorie counting, but the problem is you don’t believe that eating animals has any moral relevance at all, but why? All you have said is that it’s natural and healthy, which I just disproved. Because you have only been talking about the human effects and not what would happen to an animal. If there was an option to hurt humans, to hurt animals, or to hurt none, which one would you choose. Because the reality is animals are suffering at the hands of humans, for something that is barely benefiting us. You still haven’t answered my question though, what is a morally relevant difference between humans and animals that it makes it ok to kill animals but not humans. Is it because we are smarter or don’t have four legs, let me know. (wish I could have done more in-depth but i’m tired lol)
Also, does this relationship seem morally neutral?
Firstly, I wasn’t comparing those issues with the production of animals, I was comparing how the justification for caring out immoral actions has no relevancy. And I’m glad we can agree that slavery was bad, but there were plenty of reasons why slavery was and still is an ongoing occurrence. Mostly because of how economically feasible it was and still is, but it will always be one of the most disturbing and disgusting things that have ever happened. But what I find interesting is where you find the line on why it is bad, of course, it is wrong to treat people like dispensable human beings, but you wrote that it is wrong because of our sapience. This is where you and I strongly disagree. Sapience is defined as wisdom or sagacity, I don’t think slavery was wrong because the people that were enslaved could have been or had the ability to be sapient. Though sapience is unique to humans, it’s not what we should be measuring the right to life and liberty too, because not all humans are sapient or will have the ability to become sapient. I still view their life as worthy and complex and whatever human should have the right to pursue happiness *Or whatever else if not hurting others*(whether if they show wisdom or sagacity or not) The reason the oppression of any human is truly horrendous is not because of there wisdom it is because of there ability to perceive or feel things, there sentience is what matters. Realizing that all humans are sentient and can feel/process emotions is why all human life should be treated with a basic level of respect.
Next, *I’m so sorry,should have given a warning before I linked that video, as I said i was tried lol*, I’m glad you tried to answer the question, but truthful it wasn’t an agrument. Yes its not socially acceptable to eat humans and socially acceptable to eat animals, but thats a statement, not a reason(being that I would rather base my moral stand points on reason/logic and not just statements without a real basis). Also its wrong to kill anything unless its in self-defense or aruably crimals or somethig but thats highly complex and depatable, but again its wrong to kill, pain and simple, it doesn’t matter whether or not it benfits you. “My position is that cruelty is wrong unless it is minimally utilized for a maximally practical purposes” unless?….im sorry thats just shocking, if any unessary business involes cruelty, it just shouldn’t be a business, especily if the business needs cruelty to have its products in the frist place. In reality, the standard practice of the prodcution of animal products doesn’t follow regulations because for one, the goveremnt doesn’t find it to be concerening, but two, for cost effects, the faster you produce them, they more money is made, theres just such a high demand that its not cost effective to kill and to treat animals “humanely” whatever that menas. And if you honestly wanted to “be there” for unnecessary curelty, then you would stop eating/using animal products, being that 97-99% of aniamls products is from Factory Farms in devloped countries.
Next, when talking about the evoultionary biology of homosapiens, I genuinely think you will find it interesting to study our anatomy, because our anatomy has most evoultionary similatries with a frugivorous and herbivore. (From our long disgestive system, to our teeth shape or our tri-chromatic vision, shows how our primary food souce that are body was desgined to comsume was manily fruits and veggies, which is why they are so beneficial to us.) https://greatlakeshealingcollective.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/img_2616.jpg?w=1040
Makes sense why animal producst are so detructive for human health, being that our body was not desgined to eat x y and z. I wouldn’t feed a cow fish and expect it to have a healthy outcome. So eating evething, even if in moderation, is not a good idea for human health when looking at major health studys *uncluding the World Health Organization’s meta-analysis* Just because you can eat something, doesn’t mean you should, don’t understand why that is a hard concept to understand.
(The domaince of another human being is part of human biology, but anyways, you didn’t write that it was part of our human biology to consume animal products, if you did, I would have responded to that, you just said, eating meat is natural)
Next, make sure Im getting this right, its okay to breed animals into existence just to off them because they could die nature(i thought you were all about nature) ummmm. Its definitely better to not have these animals in existence than to vigorously use and abuse them.
*Can you define what is ethical? Or how to ethically kill an animal?*
Sorry im kinda laughing how you put cancer and benfits in the same sentence. If something causes cancer, how can it be benfital in an evoultionary sense? Just a little speachless, but im also a mexican women so am i ever speachless lets be real. I don’t know if you know how much it actually increases the average persons risk of cancer, diabetes, alzgeimers ect, so here are some studys if you are interested, if wouldn’t mind linking your studys about health and human evoultion on where you got your opinion, I would love to do more research.
Opps, also forget to answer the questions you asked, for the first two, I think that the people that work in slaughter houses don’t usally want to work there, Its usally Afarican-Americans and Latino/Latinas that usally have to work there. These industries can’t even care about animals, they defenitly don’t care to much about there empolyees.
Is there a way to raise animals for slaughter that is respectable?- For this one, I would say no. You can’t kill something intentionally and unnecesarily respectably.
mkay, think thats it, sorry if there are any spelling or grammatical errors, also if i’m being to harsh let me know
Ok, so I know that you two have probably skimmed over this before but, I in a moral sense lean in between feeling as if this is wrong or if this is good, for me really it just depends on whether or not I know this animal is my pet or if I’ve been consuming this my whole life. In a logical sense then by all means I see this practice fine, we’ve been doing this for tens of thousands of years, (probably more) across our evolutionary upbringing and even to this day.
Have you ever seen the food chain? It shows multi-level complex diagram that I cannot fully explain without boring myself to death, however it shows that all shown, (albeit producer or apex predator) all need to intake some form of energy. So when talking from a logical standpoint then yes, we obviously need to intake energy and eating animals is very accessible
However, once you go into depth suggesting as to kill animals for the simple act of doing so brings in a whole different viewpoint from me. No, killing animals for the sake of it is morally wrong and I do not condone the act of doing so.
Hey, don’t worry I get it, I’m just as stupid haha
You recognize your hypocrisy in your actions, which don’t get me wrong, that is good, but it’s not an argument. I have a feeling that you wouldn’t use that in any other case and neither would I because I assume that you are a decent person and live by just morals and logic. “Now, a good counter to this would be that I am leeching more into hypocrisy, so what? I dictate myself and only I may choose what I want to eat at a cookout.” You are correct that you can dictate what you get to eat at a cookout, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. If you could come up with a justification that pertains to the morals of eating animals then that would be much appreciated, because truthfully it gets boring saying “just because it tastes good or you want to it doesn’t mean that it would be a moral action”. Name something in specific, because if it is an okay thing to do, then it would be easy to find.
Next, I hope I don’t write to much, I find nutrition interesting but as I said before you can look above for studies. To start I am going to be arguing the notion that animal products as a fuel source is one, unnecessary but two, a worse fuel source when compared to whole plant foods on a human biological level (aka how it affects our health) Firstly, you argue that my statement on how animal products aren’t a good energy source because of the high probability for them to cause disease isn’t valid because plants can carry the same diseases. Now to clarify, when I was referencing diseases, I meant it to be perceived as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, arthritis, dementia, etc (Which by the overwhelming amount of research have been linked to the consumption of animal products, studies above) But Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria or whatever else is more probable to be found in animal products in comparison to plant-based foods, in fact, one would have about a 2% chance of contracting those diseases from plant foods, whereas eggs can’t legally be called safe to consume in the US. But, your next claim, which would have been nice if you cited your study, states that the flaws with only eating plant-based foods can have deficiencies. If you could state what nutrients can only be found in animal products that can not be found in plant foods then I would be extremely surprised, being that all nutritious come from plants, to begin with (If you have ever seen a food chain before 😉 ) But being that animal products raise your risk for all-cause mortality, I would argue that if all nutrients can be found in plant foods, then there is no reason to take a risk. So your statements aren’t factually based.
So if the need to eat animals and their by-products isn’t a need at all, then what would make it an okay action to do? Even if animal products aren’t linked with a list of downsides, why would we kill something with the ability to feel and perceive emotions?