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! okay, though I understand the point trying to be made, there are several flaws in your argument.
1- You asked the question is it wrong for animals to kill other animals, insinuating that because other animals do it, then why can’t we? My response is the fact that as humans we have moral agency and know what is right and wrong. And we don’t base our morality on the actions of animals anyways, animals rape and kill one other in nature, should we do the same because they’re doing it? Then you asked if it was wrong to specifically breed animals for death for human consumption. Or at least my opinion of this issue. My answer is that it is wrong to breed animals to exploit and kill them for their body parts or secretions, mainly because it is NOT necessary for us to survive or have a healthy lifesyte.
2-I am glad that we aren’t disgusting me eating plants as if it is the same thing as eating a dog or pig because that would just be insensible and illogical. But you then make the argument that because eating animals is natural and necessary for human health(which is completely unscientific *Citation Needed*) then it makes it morally neutral. Words in specific, eat the most NATURAL and HEALTHY way. Just because something is natural to humans, it does not make it morally right. Humans have a natural implication to dominate over other men or women, to kill or enslave people, does not make it a morally okay thing to do. Meaning, it has no bearing or stronghold on why it would be okay to kill an animal because natural doesn’t mean moral.
And saying that animal products are healthy is completely mistaken. Animal products have been seen by the media analysis of human health to be very detrimental. They are proven to raise LDL and contribute to the main diseases in the west, heart disease, cancer, obesity. Just carcinogenic, unsafe to eat bomb neatly packaged animal ass.
Lastly, the notion that we would form a social contract with animals saying “hey guys we’re not gonna eat you, your welcome” Is a deflective and fallacious way to get away from the fact that there is no reason to continue to eat animals when it is unhealthy for us and the environment, and how we know better than to kill a sentient being for minutes of taste pleasure. We know that it is wrong to be doing this action, regardless of if the animals would appreciate it or not, it’s just a very strange argument.
My question to you would be, what is a morally relevant difference that would make it be okay to kill an animal and not a human? Thanks for the discussion.
Absolutely, you’re a good interlocutor.
So, for your first numbered point, I’d say my second numbered point above it already addressed that. In a roundabout way, I guess what both of my points were describing is that there is probably as little reason to do it as to abstain. So, if you’re asking me, 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, probably a moral wash. Or in another way I would say that any individual instance of this happening is arguably a morally bad thing, but looking at the meta side of things, the system of eating animals appears to be perfectly natural, even for animals of sapience (humans).
Yes, sapience complicates the equation, but for me, anyone’s ultimate position on the topic is illogical or the result of a rounding error. The way I round the decimals off in this decision just happens to be closer to not caring.
As for the social contract thing, we actually do this all the time. Think of trained animals. We form a reciprocal relationship with them based on how they behave in response to us, and vice versa. So, I don’t think its a crazy leap to say they kill and eat each other, and us, which establishes a relationship of moral neutrality. I think that while we have a couple sticking points to work through, we will probably find by the end of this that our major disagreement is not is it good or bad? But rather, is it bad? Or just morally neutral. If there were as good an option, in my opinion, as using animal products, I would love that. However, as things stand I say it is morally whatever to eat animals. Yeah it sucks, but it seems to be the most effective choice of relationship on the table.
As for the sticking points:
The big one is the health science one. I think that regardless of how much we have each researched, it seems that no mainstream point of view on nutrition is really reliable aside from caloric intake. Actually, I believe that your opinion on this point sways your opinion, in a good way, beyond a rounding error. If what you’re saying is true, and idk tbh, then I would not have a hard time agreeing with you. However, I’m more in the middle on this point, and therefore pretty middle of the road on the morality topic.
The only other one I see at this moment is that I want you to argue against my position of moral neutrality. I’m not saying eating animals is a moral good. I’m saying its whatever. Because of our predicament it is a wash morally. If there is a way to eat plants that is as efficient and satisfying then my opinion flips to your side with little effort. I just honestly think that most likely nobody knows the right way to eat. Also, based on that, I would say that the use of animal products has historically been good in almost every way except morally and (arguably) environmentally.
- Liked by
-
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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KezHKbUzy0A
Hello again, and you’re good, I understood it all.
First off, let’s try to mind the hyperbole, please. Even things like bringing up rape when we’re talking about killing for food is kind of over the top. I know you think its a good extreme example of the same thing, but its really not. Also, the slavery one as well, but I can just put that to bed right here. Slavery was just straight up bad. So bad, that any good that came from it is far outweighed by that badness. Its not even the same as say enslaving an animal because now you’re doing it to a sapient being.
As for the relevant difference between killing humans versus animals for food, there is sapience, but also we don’t eat humans. Its a silly retort but honestly yeah, it’d be morally wrong to kill something just for the sake of cruelty. This reminds me of your video link, which has sparked an initial reaction I still hold to, but also some interesting questions. My position is that cruelty is wrong unless it is minimally utilized for a maximally practical purpose. However, I would say that the disclaimer at the start of the video backs up my point much more than the video does yours. What we see in that is against all set standards. If you want me to condemn the way that things are done in the worst of situations I’m there. But it doesn’t mean that killing animals for food is needlessly cruel; only that the way recorded is terrible. My questions from my reaction to this video however:
Can a person work in slaughtering animals over time without becoming desensitized to the treatment of them?
What type of people work these jobs? Are they predisposed to cruelty?
Is there a way to raise animals for slaughter that is respectable?
But thats an aside really.
Id like to touch on what I mean when I say natural. Here, the context is important. So, I believe that everything observed ever is natural because it is a part of the natural world. If it was unnatural, it wouldn’t exist in nature. When I say “natural” in the context of human diet, I’m using an evolutionary biology viewpoint. It seems evolutionary that humans have evolved as near omnivores, and unless presented with medical evidence otherwise, I’d say it’s probably healthy for us to eat almost everything edible to us (in moderation of course) because we wouldn’t have evolved to eat that otherwise. For a counter-example, see the koala which did the opposite.
What I’m getting at is that your slavery analogy makes no sense because we are using the word natural in two different ways. The difference, to me, is that one is obviously broadly evolutionary, and the other is much more narrow a picture than you paint. Slavery is the outright physical and psychological dominance of a sapient person able to fully understand what is happening. This is where the cruelty argument falls apart.
In the case of sapient creatures, raising them without personal liberty is wrong, but (cliche as hell) would you rather a non-sapient creature struggle in the wild? Or prosper for generations, even to the fate they meet so long as it is ethical, and die early? Keep in mind that the latter is a major contributor to the prosperity of the globe and that docile, plentiful nature is exactly the reason that predators in general have evolved in every ecosystem ever.
As for the health things, I’d say that as long as the raising of an animal is ethical, the medical treatment of that animal is ethical based on the health effects experienced in the population of consumers. If there is an outlier among animal products that evidently greatly increases health effects in people, we should eliminate it. But if a person wants to eat prime beef their whole life even though it results in slightly increased cancer risk across the broader population, I say fuck it. It seems to be so good for the diet in so many ways, as well as be natural evolutionarily, so yeah, go for it.
As a final aside, I’d say that if you argue that the cheapest of animal products are terrible for the diet, I’d agree with you. But as long as you’re eating quality, whole foods, animal products are great for most humans.
- Liked by
Hey
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.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716237/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3132069/
http://doctorklaper.com/answers/answers07/
http://www.msard-journal.com/article/S2211-0348(16)30100-6/pdf
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
Hello again, and trust me you’re good. You’re not harsh, at most emotionally invested, and even if you were harsh I doubt I’d care much beyond treating you differently.
Now I’m just going to lay out the big points and respond to each below.
– you weren’t comparing slavery to production of animal products.
Sure, thats not what I was saying. All I’m saying is that extreme example, being tied loosely in that way, is a form of morally loading the question beyond its actual moral implications. Those comparisons are an argumentative trap in which I can express any reasonable point of view and still be crucified due to the framing. Not genuous in argumentation.
– not all humans are fully sapient or capable of full sapience (paraphrasing)
So here, I would take a statistical analysis approach. Obviously there will be outliers, but we can’t judge what is best for the average person based on some extreme examples.
– thats a statement not a reason.
So, the statement here is obviously based on reasoning I thought was obviously implied. I would say that my statement of we don’t eat people applies to anything else outside the human diet. If there is a tried and true observation that something is outside of our diet, then it is obviously immoral to kill that thing for consumption. All I was saying there.
– the cruelty thing
I could have done a better job clarifying here. What I meant by “minimally used” is that all attempts to eliminate cruelty unnecessary to the final product have been undergone. By “maximally utilized” I mean that the benefits of the product after this process are statistically significant. I think most animal products on the market fit this definition.
– *uncluding the WHO’s meta-analysis*
Id just like to say here that you’re excluding the most important form of analysis. Meta-analyses are THE BEST form of scientific analysis data available to people. If a single study contradicts a meta-analysis, I’m going with the meta and so should you.
– the me saying animal products are natural, but not expressly saying evolutionary.
ill just say right here that that is 100% my implication there so feel free to tackle that.
– the breeding for death thing.
Here is one moral quandary I think we disagree on heavily. I’d say that while you think its unnecessary, it appears to be in fact necessary to keep making animal products. So, unless you can present an actual reason why its unnecessary, youd argument rings hollow.
– the cancer versus benefits thing
So, here you’re making a very obvious mistake. If I said, exposure to sunlight increases cancer risk (marginally, same as quality beef consumption), but conveys a ton of other health benefits that outweigh that risk, would you have the same issue? Thats all I’m saying here.
– and responses to my questions:
– can someone work in a slaughterhouse and still care?
Sorry, that feels like a dodge to me. I’m not asking if the companies (that are detached from the process) care. I’m asking if you think someone directly involved can psychologically afford to care about the animals they kill in the face of their own wellbeing.
– is there a respectable way to raise slaughter animals?
Here id disagree with you, even though you interpreted the question correctly. I’d say its morally neutral to birth a being specifically as a food source. Yeah it sucks, but we need that specific food.
To end off ill say I didn’t click any of your links, but the url’s suggest unreliable sources. I could be wrong though.
- Liked by
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, what’s up?! Welcome to club
So you fall in between the action of killing animals as good or bad as it depends on the situation. Now that can be broad, but you specifically state whether you have a relationship with the animal or not affects you. To state that because you have seen the animal’s personality it makes you less likely to want to consume them, but it’s not a valid argument being that cows, pigs, chickens, or whatever animal you eat, you could develop a relationship with. But I got more of an impression that because you have been doing one thing your whole life then that somehow makes what the thing you are doing morally okay. Though it can be hard to see the hypocrisy in the action of not eating your pet but eating another animal, I would imagine its easy to see that just bc humans have been doing it for thousands of years, or my culture does this, or I as an individual have been doing x y and z, it doesn’t automatically mean that the action is moral. (if you would want to discuss more of the biology of eating animals in an evolutionary sense I would love to, but you could also read the last thing I posted above)
And yes, believe it or not, I have seen a food chain. The argument is that we need to get an energy source that is accessible? The main issue I have with this is the fact that animal products aren’t the best available energy source for humans anyway(being that they contribute to a plethora of diseases, again look up for studies sited), but also how plant foods are a source of energy(that actually contain more bioavailable energy and more sugars, fats and proteins that our body is more specifically designed to break down, lmao also lookup for studies) But again plants areas available, so really not an argument for killing animals.
My question to you would be just bc something is down for thousands of years or something that many people do, does it mean that it’s an ok thing to do?
Hey bud, thanks for the welcome 😀
So allow me to elaborate what I’ve said before. Sure it is hypocrisy in not consuming my pet as opposed to other animals, I’ll just be straight with you- not buttering anything up. I do not want to eat my dog or that of a different species of it because I’ve known it for many years, I do not want to have a cow (for example) as a pet because I do not live on a farm and I do not have the energy to actively feed it the proper nutrients it needs. I accept eating meat because it tastes delicious. Now, a good counter to this would be that I am leeching more into hypocrisy, so what? I dictate myself and only I may chose what I want to eat at a cookout.
Going on to the next one in which you state just because we’ve been doing it for thousands of years, does not make it moral. Of course it doesn’t make it moral, because I specifically stated that I viewed it upon a logical basis, not a moral one.
Moving on towards the food chain I meant that meat is one of the main sources of energy for humans and is very accessible. Your counter- argument was that meat is not a good source of energy because it they transmit a number of diseases. This is true, however, the same thing can be said for plants as of which you proposed as being an alternative. They also contain harmful diseases such as, (Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, e.c.t,), saying that meat isn’t a good source because of the diseases in them is not valid seeing as vegetables also contain diseases. While you’re true that plants do contain certain beneficial attributes such as energy in which we are more designed to break down, you must realise that there are also flaws into only eating plants as well. Mainly in that vegan and vegetarians are prone to many deficiencies in their diets mainly due to not intaking animal or animal based cuisine, such as (Vitamin B12, Vitamin D, Omega-3, Zinc, Iron, e.c.t,). Again, a counter-argument towards these would be intaking multi-vitamins or eating grains and specific vegetables with these, however, I don’t think you’ll much like having to eat excess amounts of these specific foods in order to gain the same amount of vitamins that you can with meat much easier. So in that being said, plants are a good source of food, however they aren’t so great by themselves.
Hey bud, thanks for the welcome 😀
So allow me to elaborate what I’ve said before. Sure it is hypocrisy in not consuming my pet as opposed to other animals, I’ll just be straight with you- not buttering anything up. I do not want to eat my dog or that of a different species of it because I’ve known it for many years, I do not want to have a cow (for example) as a pet because I do not live on a farm and I do not have the energy to actively feed it the proper nutrients it needs. I accept eating meat because it tastes delicious. Now, a good counter to this would be that I am leeching more into hypocrisy, so what? I dictate myself and only I may chose what I want to eat at a cookout.
Going on to the next one in which you state just because we’ve been doing it for thousands of years, does not make it moral. Of course it doesn’t make it moral, because I specifically stated that I viewed it upon a logical basis, not a moral one.
Moving on towards the food chain I meant that meat is one of the main sources of energy for humans and is very accessible. Your counter- argument was that meat is not a good source of energy because it they transmit a number of diseases. This is true, however, the same thing can be said for plants as of which you proposed as being an alternative. They also contain harmful diseases such as, (Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, e.c.t,), saying that meat isn’t a good source because of the diseases in them is not valid seeing as vegetables also contain diseases. While you’re true that plants do contain certain beneficial attributes such as energy in which we are more designed to break down, you must realise that there are also flaws into only eating plants as well. Mainly in that vegan and vegetarians are prone to many deficiencies in their diets mainly due to not intaking animal or animal based cuisine, such as (Vitamin B12, Vitamin D, Omega-3, Zinc, Iron, e.c.t,). Again, a counter-argument towards these would be intaking multi-vitamins or eating grains and specific vegetables with these, however, I don’t think you’ll much like having to eat excess amounts of these specific foods in order to gain the same amount of vitamins that you can with meat much easier. So in that being said, plants are a good source of food, however they aren’t so great by themselves.
“My question to you would be just bc something is down for thousands of years or something that many people do, does it mean that it’s an ok thing to do?”
No, just because of that it does not mean it’s a good thing to do. Slavery was thought to be a revolutionary concept gaining Europeans- I know it’s been done by other races before, but just allow me to say the most famous instance- mass amounts of cheap labour as opposed to hiring workers. Just because we’ve been consuming meat for thousands of years does not make it morally okay. However, I am fine with this. Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk.
- Liked by
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?
- Liked by
YOUR PREVIEW
0
0
