Is meat eating morally justifiable.

Author: Checkmate ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 52
  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    The following are all the justifications for meat eating I can think of, all of which my rational self has debunked.

    Animals are stupid
    Does this mean we can eat new born babies whom are all stupid? Does this mean it is acceptable to eat retarded people?

    Most people think it is morally acceptable to eat animals.
    Just because most people think something, doesn't mean it's correct (although this in itself is debatable). After all, slavery used to be widely accepted before republicans put a halt to it.

    We need meat to survive.
    We don't.

    Human beings are evolved to be omnivores. It is natural for us to eat meat.
    A lot of things are natural. Genetically, male are prone to be violent, however, this does not justify violent behaviour.

    Animals eat animals.
    Animals kill animals. Does this make murder right? To compare the morality of a human to that of a vulture is hardly a good argument.

    In conclusion, I guess the reason I eat meat is because it tastes good and I really, to put it bluntly, do not care about animals.


  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,893
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @fauxlaw @ImminentDownfall
    You should be interested in this.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,178
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Checkmate
    We need to kill to survive.

    It's just that meat is fluffier and cuter than beans.

    It's all in the mind, just like morality.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Checkmate
    By the numbers:

    Animal stupidity: intelligence in animals, including man, is relative, but there is no correlation between intelligence and eating other than some people merely eat to live, and I live to eat. I am an avowed omnivore.

    Moral acceptance of meat-eating: it is not a mater of morality, it is a matter of taste. I prefer steak to rice. Not to mention that it just so happens that cultivate wetlands, such as rice paddies, and all natural wetlands, river, lakes and oceans deliver more methane into the atmosphere than cows.

    Survival: Now we do not absolutely require meat to survive, but it is necessary for thriving. Not to mention that among our tooth variety, we have canines, the purpose of which exclusively to tear flesh. Not to mention that one enzyme in saliva has the exclusive purpose to begin the digestion of meat protein.

    Genetics: As said above, morality has no nexus with meat-eating. And our genetic aggressive behavior, even though sometimes excessive, is more related to survival than violence, and, it is not as though we are compelled to violence, because we have the ability to apply morality over violence. That we allow excessive aggression in ourselves is a lack of will power, not weakness to coercion.

    Murder: is a crime that is legally exclusive to humans against humans. We do not murder an animal. It is killing, but it is not murder.
  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    --> @fauxlaw
    I am an avowed omnivore.
    Which some can argue is wrong. Just because you are avowed to something, doesn't mean it's right. 

    It is not a mater of morality, it is a matter of taste. I prefer steak to rice
    Well I prefer human legs to steak. Am I allowed to eat humans?


    Now we do not absolutely require meat to survive, but it is necessary for thriving.
    I can easily say my need for human legs is necessary for me to thrive. I can also say that my fetish for killing little children is necessary for my enjoyment. 

    And our genetic aggressive behavior, even though sometimes excessive, is more related to survival than violence, and, it is not as though we are compelled to violence
    It doesn't matter why men are aggressive. It doesn't matter if it is related to their survival instincts. The point is that it is not accepted in society. If a man went to court for beating his wife, would a valid response be "but it's in my genes"? This does not alleviate the moral incorrectness of meat eating. 

    We do not murder an animal. It is killing, but it is not murder.
    Sure. It's killing not murder. Is killing right?
  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    --> @zedvictor4
    We need to kill to survive.
    Incorrect

    It's just that meat is fluffier and cuter than beans.
    That's essentially just admitting defeat. 

    It's all in the mind, just like morality.
    Using that logic, you can justify murder. 

  • Lemming
    Lemming avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 520
    3
    2
    3
    Lemming avatar
    Lemming
    Interesting topic, though I can't think of anything worthwhile to say, yet.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,178
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Checkmate
    How is it incorrect? 

    How is it essentially just admitting defeat?

    Yep, murder is philosophically justifiable....  But that's generally not the way things happen..... Because murder is socially unacceptable.....Of course, murder like most things is open to interpretation.
  • skittlez09
    skittlez09 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,014
    3
    3
    9
    skittlez09 avatar
    skittlez09
    --> @Checkmate
    no but ppl still do it anyways including myself 

  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    --> @zedvictor4
    This doesn't solve the problem, It just enlargers it. Are you saying murder can be right?
  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    --> @skittlez09
    That's the conclusion I came to. I was hoping for something more constructive. 
  • skittlez09
    skittlez09 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,014
    3
    3
    9
    skittlez09 avatar
    skittlez09
    --> @Checkmate
    when i was hella into debating veganism was always something that was hella interesting 

    for the life of me i couldnt figure out a good argument in favor of eating meat that doesnt involve being psycho asf lmao 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,178
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Checkmate
    Are you saying that right and wrong are universal constants?

    Or did we not just make them up?

    And are we not selectively moral anyway?

    Killing one thing bothers us less than killing another...Humans included.

    Unless of course,  you are a pacifist, fruitarian, hermit.
  • ImminentDownfall
    ImminentDownfall avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 15
    0
    0
    5
    ImminentDownfall avatar
    ImminentDownfall
    --> @Checkmate
    If you don't care about the psychological and physical torture of sentient beings who feel as much love for their children as we humans do and feel pain as we do, you are probably mentally insane or just stupid
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @zedvictor4
    Are you saying that right and wrong are universal constants?
    If they are, they would have to demonstrate it


    Or did we not just make them up?
    Essentially, but that is drastically over simplifying the issue. We have a couple of derivatives for morality, and though they could be argued to be circular, there are reasons they ought to be held. 1) Biologically speaking - humans should value groups and communities - they value person hood which is dependent on well being (the physical and mental state of a person), they value sentience. Therefore the massive harm to sentience done to animals is more biologically distressing than say, wanting to eat meat because it tastes good. Its a net benefit/harm analysis essentially.


    Killing one thing bothers us less than killing another...Humans included.
    If you want to apply humans to a scale of what is bothering you, then you have inherently put a value on human lives. Therefore what I said above applies. 


    Unless of course,  you are a pacifist, fruitarian, hermit.
    No, for what I explained above.


  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Checkmate
    The distinction of killing and murder has at least two variables:
    1. Killing is ending any life, not just human.
    2. Murder is the deliberate ending of human life only, but no other living organism can be murdered. Murder is only a legal distinction.

    As a result, you are limited in what an ending of life should be called.
    Morality, having many outlets, not just one, varies in its distinction of whether killing is "right," or not. Otherwise, I will virtually guarantee that you occasionally wear clothes and use products originating from an animal or plant that was killed to obtain the raw material; an argument that leads to absurdity.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,178
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Theweakeredge
    I am merely suggesting that issues are often simple and that humans have a tendency to want to over-complicate them.....Which often results in contradictory or selective morality.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @zedvictor4
    Hmm, sure, but in this case, they aren't. 
  • Utanity
    Utanity avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 375
    0
    2
    2
    Utanity avatar
    Utanity
    --> @fauxlaw
    What a lot of people forget is that it is just not us that can kill and eat animals, they can kill and eat us. So it is better that we eat animals before they eat us.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Utanity
    Well, that is certainly a point to consider, and the fact is, I have been in a situation, in a Thai jungle, where, after an hour of carefully picking a path where there was no worn path to follow [too much foliage under foot and at all levels up], and, being alone, I suddenly realized I was no longer at the top of the food chain.  That is very, very sobering. I'd say most people in a first-world country never experience that. Something close to it I experienced, also in Thailand, was scuba diving off a jetty about 200 feet from shore at only 30 feet in depth. About 10 feet from the bottom, I swam slowly beyond the underwater tip of the jetty. The sand beneath me was void of anything. Side to side, nothing but water that receded from absolutely clear to medium blue. Then I straightened, floating head and body perpendicular to the sand, and I stared out seeing nothing but clear water and not another living thing in sight, and the water receded into darkness, like looking into eternity. I felt utterly alone, without anything seen to give me any sense of where I was. I could have turned around and easily seen seen the water become shallow. In the short distance to shore, I could have seen the water turn a ghostly white in tidal churning, but I didn't turn and I shook with sudden fear that I faced absolutely nothing at all. Good, God, that was a fright.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,178
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Utanity
    We generally don't eat Lions and Tigers, but perhaps the occasional Shark or Crocodile.

    It's usually things like Cattle, Sheep, Chickens and Pigs.

    Though Pigs will eat you given the opportunity, but they don't necessarily prey on humans.

    Therefore your argument, though not exactly incorrect, was nonetheless a tad basic. 

    As a realist I would say that killing living material for the purposes of consumption and nutrition, is natural and therefore acceptable.

    The vegetarian argument is based upon selective perception/differentiation coupled with an assumed morality...Which is fundamentally not natural, but is undoubtedly a natural consequence of human development.

    So if humans continue to evolve in this direction, there is a strong chance that one day we will be a wholly vegetarian species.
  • Utanity
    Utanity avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 375
    0
    2
    2
    Utanity avatar
    Utanity
    --> @zedvictor4
    So if humans continue to evolve in this direction, there is a strong chance that one day we will be a wholly vegetarian species.
    Yes but then God is gonna make vegetables out of meat.
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 206
    0
    3
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    --> @Checkmate @zedvictor4
    In conclusion, I guess the reason I eat meat is because it tastes good and I really, to put it bluntly, do not care about animals.
    Are animal's feelings not valuable?

    Also, how do you distinguish indifference between eating human meat and animal meat? Why be apathetic about one and not the other?

    We need to kill to survive.
    In yesteryears, this may be the case, but our current technological circumstances have us on the precipice of commercially available synthetic meat. "Need" will soon be obsolete. 

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,178
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Utanity
    Yes but then God is gonna make vegetables out of meat.
    You will have to explain this concept of yours as I don't quite get the point.


    Though humans are already making very good meat alternatives out of vegetables.

    I choose to consume a diet that doesn't include red or poultry meat, though I do include fish.....This is based purely on health and dietary reasons, rather than moral reasons.
  • MgtowDemon
    MgtowDemon avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 206
    0
    3
    4
    MgtowDemon avatar
    MgtowDemon
    --> @fauxlaw
    Animal stupidity: intelligence in animals, including man, is relative, but there is no correlation between intelligence and eating other than some people merely eat to live, and I live to eat. I am an avowed omnivore.
    Firstly, intelligence isn't relative as the 'g' factor is an objective measurement of intelligence (I.Q. is not, perhaps explaining your confusion).

    Secondly, you didn't address the sentiment of his question: is the fact that animals are less intelligent than humans the/a reason you believe animal consumption is moral?

    Moral acceptance of meat-eating: it is not a mater of morality, it is a matter of taste. I prefer steak to rice. Not to mention that it just so happens that cultivate wetlands, such as rice paddies, and all natural wetlands, river, lakes and oceans deliver more methane into the atmosphere than cows.
    It is a matter of morality because that was the question asked. We're not interested in reading about your personal tastes.

    Survival: Now we do not absolutely require meat to survive, but it is necessary for thriving. Not to mention that among our tooth variety, we have canines, the purpose of which exclusively to tear flesh. Not to mention that one enzyme in saliva has the exclusive purpose to begin the digestion of meat protein.
    This is a naturalistic fallacy in that you assume our canine teeth, due to evolutionary design, must be used to tear flesh. Unless you can demonstrate harm in not using canine teeth in such a way, it is entirely possible to not use those canine teeth for such a use, especially when said usage demands harm to animals.

    As for your point's latter half, again, you haven't demonstrated that said enzyme must be used elsewise there will be a negative impact.

    Genetics: As said above, morality has no nexus with meat-eating. And our genetic aggressive behavior, even though sometimes excessive, is more related to survival than violence, and, it is not as though we are compelled to violence, because we have the ability to apply morality over violence. That we allow excessive aggression in ourselves is a lack of will power, not weakness to coercion.
    Merely stating that "morality has no nexus with meat-eating" doesn't make it so -- you need to demonstrate this conclusion through argumentation.

    Using your moral framework, we need not be violent to animals anymore (since we have meat alternatives), hence this "excessive aggression in ourselves is a lack of will power." After all, "we have the ability to apply morality over violence".

    Murder: is a crime that is legally exclusive to humans against humans. We do not murder an animal. It is killing, but it is not murder.
    Nonsense. Animal abuse incurs criminal penalties in the developed parts of the world. Albeit, currently, not all animals have the fortune of this protection.

    Furthermore, if you have no moral qualms with using a shovel to smack a dog until you crush its skull, you likely have severe psychological pathologies.