Immoral to eat meat? --Tostrong4you

[tostrong4you]

IOh, you heard moral arguments, but you didnt listen..

can you give me a list?

[knot]

I care about the humans that effect me yea, but why should I care about any other ones?

All humans affect you in some capacity. How could they not? If the 3rd world suddenly decided to stop producing goods for us, I'm pretty sure you would notice a change for the worse. You were only born into wealth by sheer luck. You might as well have been born in a place where you live on less than $2 a day, which is the case for around %50 of the world's population. If you were in that position, wouldnt you want the people with all the possibilities and excess wealth to make things better?

Even when we help someone else, we expect something in return down the line.

Most find that helping others is psychologically gratifying. Other than that it's always a strong strategy to cooperate, because if you screw people over enough times they will no longer want to cooperate with you. Cooperation and fairness are important to the survival of our species. Maybe watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48EWLj3gIJ8

Environmental disaster? Like what?

Rising waters and extreme weather

can you give me a list?

Given what you have said so far, I think we would first have to define what morality is. Can we at least agree that in order for the word "morality" to have any meaning and be of any use at all, the word will have to do with the treatment of others? And can we agree there are better and worse ways to treat others?

[tostrong4you]

definition of morality--the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
Basically logic.
Why is it illogical to eat meat.

Rising waters is not an issue for were I live.
Extreme weather? Bring it on nature, only more motivation to innovate.
I think humans will one day control weather.

if I was in a position were I wasnt happy, I would change it.

[Kyron]

I have a feeling this person is trolling... I don't think anybody can really be this... Mhm. /:

Though, in the case that this is a legitimate person, though I doubt -

What is right or wrong? It's a very blurry thing to define and it's pretty subjective. My friend likes to talk about this subject philosophically quite a lot.
You could say that what Hitler did was good for society, as the war pushed technology into an age that would have taken decades had there not been a drastic reason to engineer computers.
Genghas Kahn spread the Mongol Empire so far and wide that it had many societal benefits and advancements that wouldn't have happened had he not been as "great" as he was, all while killing and raping millions of people.
Pablo Escobar was a ruthless Colombian drug-lord who killed many.. Though, he also used a lot of his money to build hospitals and schools. Probably to just launder his money or something, however does that take away from what he did?

There is no clear definition of what right or wrong is, there is quite often a positive side to many of these things.
Personally, I don't see a positive side to animal agriculture. It's a waste of crops, as it feeds a lot less humans than the crops those animals ate would have fed. It's incredibly damaging to the environment, worse than all of motor transport.. And of course, it causes the unnecessary suffering and slaughter of many animals.

[knot]

definition of morality--the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
Basically logic.
Why is it illogical to eat meat.

Eating meat may be considered rational, but only if you don't care about any animals, other people (including close family), the environment or your own health. As long as you care about literally anything else than your own immediate pleasure, then veganism will always be strictly more rational and ethical. A meat eater would have to be a complete nihilist in order to be logically consistent. You're already on a forum trying to determine what's right and what's wrong, so we can conclude you're probably not a real nihilist. You also indicated you care at least about some people. That is enough to say you would be a more rationally and ethically consistent person if you were vegan.

Rising waters is not an issue for were I live.

Perhaps, but it will be an issue for people you depend on.

if I was in a position were I wasnt happy, I would change it.

Most people don't have the luxury of being able to change anything about their situation.

[EquALLity]

Only what matters to humans matters because thats the point of life, to spread more humans

Source?

So you're pro-life? Also do you think women should be forced to be pregnant whenever possible? And you're anti-contraception?

Also you didn't address my other points.

[tostrong4you]

Personally, I don't see a positive side to animal agriculture. It's a waste of crops, as it feeds a lot less humans than the crops those animals ate would have fed. It's incredibly damaging to the environment, worse than all of motor transport.. And of course, it causes the unnecessary suffering and slaughter of many animals.

Wasteful yes, but more importantly:delicious.
What does it matter if animals suffer?
Their emotions are just chemicals, you afraid of a chemical?

[tostrong4you]

Do you think women should be forced to be pregnant whenever possible? And you're anti-contraception?

no and no

So? Why are you drawing an arbitrary line that only what matters to humans matters?

Because im human and humans are the most dangerous animal on the planet

..So? Neither are 2 year olds. So it's ok to kill two year-olds?

no because they have parents and people who care for it who will go after you, and the baby can grow up and become a productive member of society.

The POTUS's life is more important than Pat Robertson's. Is it therefore ok to kill Pat Robertson

no because pat robertson is a human

[tostrong4you]

Eating meat may be considered rational, but only if you don't care about any animals, other people (including close family), the environment or your own health.

I dont know why other animal lives should matter, other peoples lives matter because they can effect me, especially close family, the environment only matters as long as far as it can pleas me and my own health can benefit from lean meat.

Rising waters is not an issue for were I live.

Perhaps, but it will be an issue for people you depend on.

A minor one, they will have to move a couple miles.

Most people don't have the luxury of being able to change anything about their situation.

[/quote]
Live free or die trying

[Kyron]

Wasteful yes, but more importantly:delicious.
What does it matter if animals suffer?
Their emotions are just chemicals, you afraid of a chemical?

Pain isn't technically an emotion, it's a sensation. But yes, technically, everything is just a result of chemical reactions and physics. Including your emotions. Can I kill you and eat you? According to people who lived near Auchwitz and Firemen, human flesh smells a lot like b a c o n. William Seabrook, a man who actually tried human flesh when traveling to West Africa describes the taste in good detail, as such:

"It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have. The steak was slightly tougher than prime veal, a little stringy, but not too tough or stringy to be agreeably edible. The roast, from which I cut and ate a central slice, was tender, and in color, texture, smell as well as taste, strengthened my certainty that of all the meats we habitually know, veal is the one meat to which this meat is accurately comparable."

I think experiencing a taste like that is sufficient reasoning to kill you and eat you, don't you?
Obviously not. And the same case for other animals. It is unnecessary. There are many, many tasty foods that are not derived from an animal. Choosing to take the sentient life for "taste" is, immoral. and if your argument is "it's only immoral because it's human, and humans are the most intelligent species" - then, what about the mentally handicapped? There are many humans who are vegetables, incapable of basic cognitive thought. Would it be okay to kill and eat them? The argument is inconsistent.