Excerpt from "Against Meat"

[iago]

Let's say for example that I know my children have need of positive loving discipline in there lives so that they will grow up to be productive citizens in life who contribute to the general welfare of society as a whole. However when faced with the challenge of implementing this discipline I find an emotional block inside of me that severally hinders my willingness to follow through. Yet I know that this is a mountain that must be overcome within my soul lest my children grow up to be another darkened statistic of America’s rapidly declining population.

The point at hand is the emotional block that is present within. Does this block justify a claim that positive loving discipline is in fact not ok? Therefore does a potential emotional block when putting my animal down justify a moral stance against the action itself?

That's definitely a good question, and I don't know if I can give a good answer to that. But, I'll try!

I think my response to that would have to be: the reason people have difficulty killing an animal (or a person, for that matter) is most likely because the person knows what they're doing is wrong. They're ok if it's abstracted and they don't have to think about the death that they're benefiting from, but when they're faced with it, they know it isn't right.

I think that taking a life is something that is innately wrong, and that makes this situation different than discipline.

Does that make sense?

[Sidoh]

I do not agree that finding murder objectionable is innate.  It seems that way because it's nearly invariably true among today's cultures that murder is objectionable, that does not, however, mean it is innate.

I think that before you go saying that killing animals is immoral, you should be required to define what makes something moral or immoral.

[iago]

I do not agree that finding murder objectionable is innate.  It seems that way because it's nearly invariably true among today's cultures that murder is objectionable, that does not, however, mean it is innate.

I think that before you go saying that killing animals is immoral, you should be required to define what makes something moral or immoral.

You're right, 'innate' is probably the wrong word. But killing is something that most people are brought up knowing is wrong, and hurting animals is something people don't do day to day.

I don't really have the ability to define what morality is, but the easiest way to look at it, to me, is a utilitarian perspective. I think we can agree that animals think, feel, and have emotions. We've all played with dogs or cats, and, as I said earlier, farm animals aren't much different (some, like pigs, are likely smarter than dogs and cats).

So, what kind of loss is involved in this deal?
Animals: lose their lives
Humans: gain some pleasure/convenience

Perhaps 'moralness' isn't immediately obvious, but I think the balance of what's right and wrong is pretty obvious there..

[Tuberload]

That's definitely a good question, and I don't know if I can give a good answer to that. But, I'll try!

I think my response to that would have to be: the reason people have difficulty killing an animal (or a person, for that matter) is most likely because the person knows what they're doing is wrong. They're ok if it's abstracted and they don't have to think about the death that they're benefiting from, but when they're faced with it, they know it isn't right.

I think that taking a life is something that is innately wrong, and that makes this situation different than discipline.

Does that make sense?

So then the emotional block present in the two scenarios is too far separated to in any way draw such implied conclusions?

From your response it seems that you are insinuating the emotional block in killing is different than that in the situation I presented because one is a product of some innate mechanism and the other, well that is yet to be defined. My concern with this would be that the struggle with proper discipline would seem innate to one personality type whereas the willingness to kill a little more innate in another, vice versa. I could conclude from this that it is possibly more a matter of temperament and personality.

To take it a step further we can include upbringing and childhood experience. For one brought up in a household structured with positive loving discipline it would more than likely be easier for that person regardless of temperament to carry the same discipline into a family of there own. For another child brought up in a severely abusive home yet having a naturally gentle disposition grows up to be a psychopathic murderer. From this I could conclude that which is defined as innate could in fact be more of a product of upbringing and other social and cultural influences.

The question is, how do we really isolate what is innate and what is not? Once again this gives rise to the question, is this really grounds for a moral stance against the killing and eating of animals?

Now allowing the possibility that it does give way to some natural innate law written on the hearts of mankind, what is the source of such law in which we are violating? Can we really be the product of randomness and chance, yet all posses such basic matters of conscience?

Now I do see your comparison between animals and humans and its implied point that if it is alright to kill an animal then why not allow the same liberty in the killing of humans, vice versa. This would however take me back to the source of such conscience and its standard.

To put it bluntly if we are all just a product of chance with no real purpose in life then morality seems to be a rather trivial matter. Eat and drink for tomorrow you die, and don’t be fooled into thinking you are somehow better for sparing Bambi when Yogi the bear wouldn’t hesitate for a second to tear you to pieces. Are we not just animals who somehow ended up a little farther down the evolutionary line? Or is there really something to your suggestions of morality? I think there is.

[Sidoh]

I do not agree that finding murder objectionable is innate.  It seems that way because it's nearly invariably true among today's cultures that murder is objectionable, that does not, however, mean it is innate.

I think that before you go saying that killing animals is immoral, you should be required to define what makes something moral or immoral.

You're right, 'innate' is probably the wrong word. But killing is something that most people are brought up knowing is wrong, and hurting animals is something people don't do day to day.

I don't really have the ability to define what morality is, but the easiest way to look at it, to me, is a utilitarian perspective. I think we can agree that animals think, feel, and have emotions. We've all played with dogs or cats, and, as I said earlier, farm animals aren't much different (some, like pigs, are likely smarter than dogs and cats).

So, what kind of loss is involved in this deal?
Animals: lose their lives
Humans: gain some pleasure/convenience

Perhaps 'moralness' isn't immediately obvious, but I think the balance of what's right and wrong is pretty obvious there..

Maybe not.  Why is morality objective?

[iago]

I do not agree that finding murder objectionable is innate.  It seems that way because it's nearly invariably true among today's cultures that murder is objectionable, that does not, however, mean it is innate.

I think that before you go saying that killing animals is immoral, you should be required to define what makes something moral or immoral.

You're right, 'innate' is probably the wrong word. But killing is something that most people are brought up knowing is wrong, and hurting animals is something people don't do day to day.

I don't really have the ability to define what morality is, but the easiest way to look at it, to me, is a utilitarian perspective. I think we can agree that animals think, feel, and have emotions. We've all played with dogs or cats, and, as I said earlier, farm animals aren't much different (some, like pigs, are likely smarter than dogs and cats).

So, what kind of loss is involved in this deal?
Animals: lose their lives
Humans: gain some pleasure/convenience

Perhaps 'moralness' isn't immediately obvious, but I think the balance of what's right and wrong is pretty obvious there..

Maybe not.  Why is morality objective?

You're arguing semantics instead of addressing my argument.

[Camel]

'puppies are cute and cows aren't' is pretty lame

NO U

[warz]

you think way too much about eating food. i like burger. i eat burger.

[iago]

you think way too much about eating food. i like burger. i eat burger.

I spend a lot of time thinking, especially about my life/lifestyle, and how I can improve myself and live better. Becoming vegan came from that, but it isn't the only thing.

Being able to perform self-inspection is an important part of humans, and something people should do much more often.

[Sidoh]

I do not agree that finding murder objectionable is innate.  It seems that way because it's nearly invariably true among today's cultures that murder is objectionable, that does not, however, mean it is innate.

I think that before you go saying that killing animals is immoral, you should be required to define what makes something moral or immoral.

You're right, 'innate' is probably the wrong word. But killing is something that most people are brought up knowing is wrong, and hurting animals is something people don't do day to day.

I don't really have the ability to define what morality is, but the easiest way to look at it, to me, is a utilitarian perspective. I think we can agree that animals think, feel, and have emotions. We've all played with dogs or cats, and, as I said earlier, farm animals aren't much different (some, like pigs, are likely smarter than dogs and cats).

So, what kind of loss is involved in this deal?
Animals: lose their lives
Humans: gain some pleasure/convenience

Perhaps 'moralness' isn't immediately obvious, but I think the balance of what's right and wrong is pretty obvious there..

Maybe not.  Why is morality objective?

You're arguing semantics instead of addressing my argument.

No, I'm really not.  Something is "right" if and only if it is moral.  You're assuming morality is objective.

[iago]

No, I'm really not.  Something is "right" if and only if it is moral.  You're assuming morality is objective.

Even if each person has his or her own set of moral standards, the double standard of not wanting to kill an animal and being ok with eating their meat still applies.

Perhaps morals aren't absolute and some people are fine with killing an animal themselves. It's more interesting to look at an average person, though.

Also, I didn't use the terms 'right' or 'wrong' as absolutes, either -- I defined them in the context of my post.

[Camel]

[Sidoh]

No, I'm really not.  Something is "right" if and only if it is moral.  You're assuming morality is objective.

Even if each person has his or her own set of moral standards, the double standard of not wanting to kill an animal and being ok with eating their meat still applies.

Perhaps morals aren't absolute and some people are fine with killing an animal themselves. It's more interesting to look at an average person, though.

Also, I didn't use the terms 'right' or 'wrong' as absolutes, either -- I defined them in the context of my post.

If morality is relative, then why can't people define eating meat non-immoral, but killing to be immoral?  that's my point...

[Towelie]

Oooh morality! I'm taking an entire class on this.

Is eating meat moral?

The main question to this is whether or not animals have the same rights as humans. It is generally accepted that the answer is no, but iago definitely thinks otherwise (outlier!).

Looking at natural law, it could be said to be moral. It is human nature to eat meat, we have always needed it to survive, and therefore it is justifiable because it preserves our life.

With utilitarianism the morality is questionable, and depends how much you weigh each issue. Here is where the issue of whether or not the animals have the same rights as we do comes into play. If they don't, killing the animal doesn't weigh that much, and people are fed (and get the proper nutrition needed to survive), while some people become upset. In this case, the positives outweigh the negatives, and is therefore morally justifiable to eat meat.

For those who are religious, the divine command theory states that an action is right because God says it is. I'm not too familiar with this subject, but I'm decently positive that this makes consuming meat morally right, or in some religions, eating specific types is morally wrong.

If moral laws are relative to the society, such as relativism suggests, then eating meat, in our culture, is morally right. If you lived in a vegan society, then it wouldn't be. But you don't.

Pretty much you could argue either way, but the general consensus is that its morally right.

[iago]

Looking at natural law, it could be said to be moral. It is human nature to eat meat, we have always needed it to survive, and therefore it is justifiable because it preserves our life.

Humans haven't always needed meat to survive. Our bodies aren't really built for meat, and definitely aren't built for milk (past the age of 5 or so). We can't even digest certain kinds of meat (like red meat) properly.

<edit> To expand a bit, because I found this really interesting when I read it...

as far as the milk thing goes, our bodies produce an enzyme called Lactase, which lets us digest milk (whether human or animal). After growing up, all mammals besides certain humans stop producing it. Around 5 years old, a lot of humans stop producing it as well, which is called "lactose intolerance". In reality, lactose intolerance is perfectly natural and happens in all other animals.. the ability to continue digesting milk is weirder.

When you stop drinking milk for enough time, your body stops producing it, as well. So if I accidentally eat/drink something containing milk now, I know it.

With utilitarianism the morality is questionable, and depends how much you weigh each issue. Here is where the issue of whether or not the animals have the same rights as we do comes into play. If they don't, killing the animal doesn't weigh that much, and people are fed (and get the proper nutrition needed to survive), while some people become upset. In this case, the positives outweigh the negatives, and is therefore morally justifiable to eat meat.

People can be fed without killing animals, and it takes FAR less resources, which means that FAR more people will be able to eat. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, I declare myself right.

For those who are religious, the divine command theory states that an action is right because God says it is. I'm not too familiar with this subject, but I'm decently positive that this makes consuming meat morally right, or in some religions, eating specific types is morally wrong.

We all know that religion is nonsense

But really, there are a lot of religious 'laws' (or whatever you call them) about not eating meat at certain times/periods that aren't followed by most people. So I don't think most people really take religion as an authoritative source on all that.

If moral laws are relative to the society, such as relativism suggests, then eating meat, in our culture, is morally right. If you lived in a vegan society, then it wouldn't be. But you don't.

That's a crazy belief.

Pretty much you could argue either way, but the general consensus is that its morally right.

Disagree.