What is the moral argument to eat meat?
- Thread starter Chikombo
- Start date
You should have read my reply to Caliburn.
"Plants feel pain" is another pathetic attempt at discrediting veganism.
Plants have no central nervous system or sentience to feel pain to begin with.
No.. They keyword is sentience. We're talking about living, breathing beings that have the capability to sense their environment and experience emotions.
No animal needs to die for you to be healthy. The fact the majority of humans believe in something stupid doesn't make that thing less stupid. Same as garbage religions.
man you dont even answer sinple kestion..i wana undstand wut u r trying to get at...so answer my previos kestion pldz..
but aniway :
do u know law of nature????...animals eat other animals...animals eat other plants....plants eat other animals..animal eat other humanz...so why not humans eat other animalz????...ITS LAW OF NATURE!!!!...
when in national geografi u see a animal documentary of lion eating young baby deer..why journalist dont interven???? ...ITS BECUZ THEY LET NATURE DO ITS TING...(altho their true intentionz is money they dont give rat a$$ about animalz)..
how'd do u think first mens in history survived????...when agriculture wasnt tiscovered yet....ITS ALL THANKS TO ANIMAL MEAT !!!!!!!!!!...if they ddin't eat that meat u and i wouldn't be existing rite now...and u wouldn't be having ur filipina gf!!!!!!..and animebase wouldn't exist!!!!..
but problem now why not human eat other humans???..its not about pain...it's about soul consiouss mind feelings emotions....humen bing are superior then animalz wih brain and emotionz...not only that sientificaly and medicaly human eat human is bad idea..
also its bollshit that u think animals shouldn't be eaten becoz they feel pain when u urself eat plant that were once LIVING tings..anyway there recent sience tiscovery that says :
"Plants communicate distress using their own kind of nervous system"..
also why u only mention negativ tings human bing do to animalz....didn't human bing also take care of animalz and plants?????..they even created sience fields specialized in that...
humans also protect animalz !!!!!!!!!!!!..
aniwey :
teh answer is it's not that vegans shouldn't eat meat...but it's that vegans should eat meat that belongs to vegan animals...animals who eat meat is bad for humans but animals who eat plants and all are healthy for humanz..
Yet, despite my apparent cluelessness, you were not even able to put as much as a dent in anything I said.
I compared it to sexual intercourse because inherently there is nothing wrong with it as we are designed to do it, but it's prone to misuse, just like when eating animals. And just like with the latter, we are not obliged to do it anymore. Women can get pregnant and still be a virgin with modern science, but I don't see that changing any time soon. And I'm pretty sure the physical integrity of a human being generally rates quite high on the morality scale.
Cheapest food in the supermarket? This statement in itself is ridiculously flawed as most supermarkets by default are organized in sections that simply by their nature would be considered 'vegan'. How could the vegetable department not be considered vegan? But it's not like that people who eat meat only eat meat. The point is that people who are vegan are generally not the type of people who will just throw a cabbage leaf on their plate as their dinner. These are people who want to use as much variety in their cooking as non-vegans, which is quite hard when you cut out large food groups like meat and dairy. Which means you would have to start juggling with various substances, but also their volume. On top of that you have to compensate for the nutrients that would easily be obtained if you wouldn't follow such a strict diet. There are a lot of factors involved, but that 'it's the cheapest food in the supermarket' as as flaccid as it sounds as it's not the price of the individual ingredient in the supermarket that's going to define the majority of the cost. Unless you're talking about cheap, pre-made salads in a plastic cup.
It's not a distant past. Even today there are many parts in the world where the situation I described is still very well applicable, even in the western world. What's more to understand the situation that is today, you need to know how that situation was created. That counts for everything, that's fundamental requirement to solve any kind of problem, while your reaction pretty comes down to this: that doesn't count. Wanting to change the world without understanding it, is plain arrogance.
Humanity has been breeding, selecting and eating animals, plants and fruits alike for millennia. Many of these act and exist purely because of humanity's intervention and would have been very different or would have not existed at all if it weren't for humans. That we became that much more proficient at it in recent times than in the past, means little as there's a difference between misuse of something and something being inherently wrong. I already said before that there probably is a lot of misconduct in the meat industry, but that is different from saying eating and processing meat is inherently wrong.
All that stuff you keep repeating about abusing animals and what not, that's an argument that's valid if you fight for animal rights, but that's not the same thing as promoting a vegan lifestyle being morally superior. Even though there's a correlation, what you are doing is simply employing a manipulative tactic by using the mistreatment of animals to attack the concept of eating meat altogether.
Some animals? This is pretty much the case in any religion, mythology or culture, present or past. Then you start talking about dung that gets people high?
Yeah, most likely all of that is true about the livestock industry. But again what you do is, at best, giving facts about that industry specifically, not about veganism. That's again a manipulation tactic. By first stating facts that can be verified and then plaster veganism at the end, it gives the impression that somehow veganism is the solution and people start making that connection then in their heads. However, that's a completely baseless statement.
It's economics one on one. If the demand increases and the supply doesn't, the prizes will be higher and to increase the supply, you would need to increase the amount that is produced each year and if you turn the entire world vegan, that would require a hell of a lot. Which means people are going to search for ways to do that and then you end up again in the exact same street as we originally were. How de we know this? Because we have done it before. Mankind is the cause of all these issues and that will still be the same, vegan or not. We have done if for millennia, whether it was for livestock, crops or other resources. You didn't solve the issue, you just shifted it away. You could debate that it's the lesser of two evils, but that's quite a low bar to set when you talk about the morality of it.
The keyword? What you just explained is exactly what I referred to in my original post. It's hypocrisy. 'They are sentient, that's the keyword'. That's laughable. Is a frog sentient? Is a tree sentient? Is a bug sentient? And how sentient does one have to be to cross your moral threshold? Considering you like bringing up facts, studies have indicated that plants very well have a certain awareness that could be classified as sentience, depending on how you define it. But that's exactly it, it's subjective. You decided subjectively to draw a line that it's bad to eat animals, but ok to eat plants because of #reasons, and when you are confronted with the exact same reasoning, you rebuttal is 'oh yeah, that's really not the same. I mean sentience, yes sentience'. Yeah, animals probably have more sentience than plants. But men have more sentience than animals. And if you're then going to claim that it's not the same, you're a hypocrite to the core. That sentience = nervous system is a scientific view, but that's not the same thing an absolute scientific fact. And considering we're talking about morality, it comes across extraordinary low to just pull this as an argument.
Intellectually dishonest? That's just a euphemism for "that doesn't count", because I say it doesn't count". Then you can just as easily say that it's intellectually dishonest to begin with to accuse people of what they're biologically equipped for and have been doing for tens of thousands of years. You talk about stepping on puppies, only we have been breeding dogs for millennia, among other things to make them look cute. So that works against you as the thought behind it is the same as for the livestock industry and would people react the same way if you stepped on a nest of roaches?
You talked about me being clueless, yet your entire argumentation is void. Hollow. There's nothing there and you try to cover that up by listing up misconduct from the livestock industry in an attempt to somehow make it appear credible, but you need to be really clueless if you think that everyone is going to fall for such a scam. In the end the only thing you do is trying to manipulate people by guilt tripping and fooling them.
A building can be accessed in a multitude of ways, but most will go through the front door, because that's what it was designed for. Pretty sure there are tons of stuff you don't need, but you probably have them anyway. That doesn't make you morally worse and be kind? Putting aside the extreme nativity of that statement, it would by a lot more convincing if it wasn't preceded by that attempt to stigmatize people who eat meat.
Not everyone can, wants or needs to have a vegan lifestyle and that's perfectly fine.
Coming from an individual who has yet to grasp the depth of Veganism, this beginning statement is empty at best.
Saying that there is nothing wrong with commodifying sentient beings, even comparing it to a consentual, non-sacrificial act like *** just sets the bar for the rest of the conversation at a low point. So, I already stopped expecting anything logical coming from you. Just because something is socially acceptable doesn't make it morally acceptable.
Are we designed to eat meat? We have flat teeth and jaws that move sideways like a herbivore, intestinal traction as long as that of herbivores as opposed to short intestinal traction of carnivores. If we ate meat raw we would get sick as our body is not suited to digest raw meat other than some fish species. Come on now.
have you went fully plant-based for atleast a year, not only adding more (new) nutritious ingredients to your dishes along the way but also thriving on it without having to spend more? If not, just be honest about it. You're not qualified to speak on it if you're on the sidelines. The fact that vegans go decades on a vegan diet and actually thrive on it nullifies your argument altogether. My powerlift-friends were actually baffled to see how quick I progressed after going fully plant-based. The only products that are somewhat expensive are vegan-meat alternative brands which isn't an addition on the daily. The fact meat and dairy are cheap also has to do with the subsidies the industries receive from governments. Taxpayers' money is often used to subsidize the livestock industry. For example; The U.K. government issued a campaign promoting the consumption of dairy using nearly a million pounds of taxpayers' money to fund this. If vegan-meat brands were subsidized that would change the situation entirely and the notion that a vegan diet is more expensive would fall apart together. And in the future, it will happen. In the Netherlands and Belgium vegan meat alternatives are booming and the prices are steadily becoming more affordable.
Wanting to change the world without understanding it, is plain arrogance.
@bold: The irony is cringeworthy.
The only reason that survival dependance on animal protein is still applicable nowadays is due to the livestock industry. Again, around 700.000 tons of crops are used to feed the systematically enslaved animals instead of the people in need. 91% of the amazon forests were destroyed due to the livestock industry and their byproducts. Research shows that we could feed an additional 4 billion humans if we grew our crops directly for human consumption, rather than feeding the crops to farmed animals and then consuming them. Entire forests in the west were laid to waste for livestock farmers. There are people that bought deadzones and turned the land into food forests. Creating an abundant biodiversity that could feed an entire village and let me add that these were one-man projects. Plenty of interesting videos on youtube if this piques your interest.
(A little off-topic but if you haven't looked up the cow dung goes psychedelic correlation, don't respond to it.)
Maybe you'll change your mind if you hear some facts that also bring perspective;
A 2018 Oxford University study – which is the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet – found that ‘avoiding meat and dairy is the single biggest way to reduce your impact on Earth’ as animal farming provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of our farmland. Humans around the world drink 5.2 billion gallons of water and eat 21 billion pounds of food each day. Cows around the world drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day - nine times as much water and seven times as much food as all humans. So, yes, veganism is the single biggest thing you can do for the environment and for the quality of life for both animals as well as humans.
You must be registered for see images
"It's economics one on one. If the demand increases and the supply doesn't, the prizes will be higher and to increase the supply, you would need to increase the amount that is produced each year and if you turn the entire world vegan, that would require a hell of a lot. Which means people are going to search for ways to do that and then you end up again in the exact same street as we originally were."
Man, what are you talking about. Anyways, supply and demand is already rapidly changing. The percentage of vegans in the U.S. already grew by 600% in the past three years and the numbers are only growing worldwide. Which means that meat- and dairyfarms are becoming more and more obsolete. There are plenty of them struggling already before Corona was introduced. This makes room for recovering the numbers of wild grazers and predators, restoring forests and the quality of the soil, less dead-zones, less poluted oceans and water supplies, less heart- and cardiovascular diseases amongst many other medical issues, the list goes on.
Are you really having a hard time separating a frog from a tree? It just goes to show how intellectually dishonest people are to even bring up the "plants are alive" argument. I was aware of these vegetation sentience studies back in 2011 before people started using it as an argument against the plant-based diet.
I mentioned a nest of puppies as an example of living beings as opposed to a field of grass, do we really need to stupify the conversation by complicating this? What does the breeding of dog sub-species have to do with the point? smh And I wouldn't step on a nest of cockroaches either, heck I don't even poison the mice that are ravaging my food garden nor do I kill the flies and spiders that enter my house. And before you even try to mention the fact that insects die due to agriculture; The world going vegan would mean we would need to grow significantly less crops as the largest bulk of crops go to livestock, which would mean less insects casualties.
Too many paragraphs to reply to is a little disorientating so I apologize if I haven't addressed anything specific you wished to have an answer to and I'd be glad to still give you one if you point it out.
Anyways, you have yet to fully grasp the entirety of the impact of veganism on the world and your health. Clearly, your understanding isn't where it needs to be yet for you to have a substantially sound argument.
Showing compassion to those who can't speak for themselves brings rewards in ways you can't imagine as of yet. Animals are not here for us. They're here for their own intrinsic values, and their own right to life.
You must be registered to see images
Last edited:
If I understood correctly, you are saying that our bodies are equipped for eating meat so we can do it (there is nothing wrong with it) regardless of the fact that the being that is being eaten is more or less aware or not?
Maybe I understood this wrong but if this is your line of thought then going by the same logic, do you also eat humans?
Last edited: