Apologies for that.RedAppleGP wrote: I don't think you quoted it properly.
Killing animals for food
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:06 am
- Diet: Meat-Eater
Re: Killing animals for food
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:06 am
- Diet: Meat-Eater
Re: Killing animals for food
My choice is to fill my stomach, not murder chickens because I hate them.brimstoneSalad wrote: If you don't need to do it, then the harm is not justified, and your choice to do harm is wrong.
Please stop using the human analogy for everything. Eating a chicken ≠ eating a human.brimstoneSalad wrote: If there are healthy and nutritious ways to eat human meat on a normal basis, is that okay?
So any research that says we need meat is pseudoscience? Haha!brimstoneSalad wrote: There is a lot of pseudoscience and quack medicine that claims meat is necessary, don't be fooled by yellow journalism.![]()
Again, my choice is not to simply harm the animal. I'm killing it for my food. I still don't see anything wrong with my intention there.brimstoneSalad wrote: The reason the choice to include meat is wrong is because it's a choice to cause more harm instead of less harm. Because it's a choice. If you didn't have a choice in the matter, then it couldn't be wrong.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10370
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Killing animals for food
There are many things to fill your stomach with. You choose one thing over another -- that is, if you think about it.Trolexander D wrote: My choice is to fill my stomach, not murder chickens because I hate them.
Look into the idea of "carnism".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg
Please watch that TEDx talk, and let me know what you think about it.
Don't be rude, you're putting words in my mouth.Trolexander D wrote: Please stop using the human analogy for everything. Eating a chicken ≠ eating a human.
Did you not explicitly see where I said eating a human being is worse than eating a dog?
I am not equating magnitude, I am equating the reasoning, which is the same.
For example, if a Christian maintains it is OK to use his or her religion to justify harm to homosexuals by denying them the right to marry only because his or her god said so and without any evidence, we can correctly compare this to an Islamist maintaining it's OK to use his or her religion to justify killing infidels with suicide bombings because his or her god said so without any evidence.
These are things of different degree, but involve the application of the same reasoning.
It is a little bit wrong to kill and eat a fish without need.
It is more wrong to kill and eat a dog without need.
It is even more wrong still to kill and eat a human without need.
IF it is not at all wrong to kill and eat a fish without need, then by that reasoning, it could not be at all wrong to kill and eat a human without need.
Consider this equation:
Sentience * harm / (1 + need) = wrongness
Killing a 1 sentience fish with 0 need:
1 sentience * 100 harm / (1 + 0 need) = 100 wrongness
Killing a 10 sentience dog without need:
10 sentience * 100 harm / (1 + 0 need) = 1,000 wrongness
Killing a 100 sentience human without need:
100 sentience * 100 harm / (1 + 0 need) = 10,000 wrongness.
These may not be real numbers, but it's just to illustrate a point: there is consistency to moral reasoning. If you can justify one thing with bad reasons, then you can justify another more serious thing with the same bad reasons.
Your claim that killing a human without need is wrong, but killing a dog or a fish without need is not at all wrong, does not work in that equation.
So, you must be asserting some different kind of equation which is not based on sentience, harm, and need.
Theists may base their equations on "god said so" or ideas of a soul: but you probably don't believe those.
So how do you justify killing non-humans without need as not at all wrong, while claiming it's very wrong to kill humans without need?
Don't be rude. You're putting words in my mouth again.Trolexander D wrote: So any research that says we need meat is pseudoscience? Haha!
Current claims of "research" that say we need meat to be healthy are pseudoscience. I'm more familiar with the "research" out there than you are.
Likewise, I would not claim that any real research done in the future that proves something like "god" exists is pseudoscience by definition; but current attempts at it are.
Maybe some day we'll prove something like a god exists? That day is not today, and given current research it is not a reasonable belief.
It is not a reasonable belief, and it is against scientific consensus, to believe humans need meat to be healthy.
Most claims come from propaganda groups like the Weston A Price foundation, and quacks like Mercola.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A. ... Foundation
Quackwatch discusses his pseudoscience of holistic dentistry: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... cdent.html
And Mercola: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
I encourage you to honestly question yourself about the biases you may hold if you want to believe that meat is necessary.
Have you actually looked into these supposed studies and claims, and examined their sources and methodology?
If I proved to you that we don't need meat to be healthy, would you admit that it is immoral to consume it?
Intention has nothing to do with it.Trolexander D wrote: Again, my choice is not to simply harm the animal. I'm killing it for my food. I still don't see anything wrong with my intention there.
People do bad things with nothing but selfish intentions all of the time. You don't have to be malevolent to do harm to others.
What if a man's intention is not to rape, but just to have sex? He doesn't care if the girl consents or not, he's going to have sex with her either way. He doesn't intend to rape her, he only intends to have sex with her: if she consents, that's fine too. So, given that, is it OK if she doesn't consent and he has sex with her anyway? It's not immoral, since rape was not his intent, just the sex?