Ethical basis for Veganism or Vegetarianism?

[Cite134]

I struggle with this question. On the one hand, eating sentient animals feels akin to murdering a human being. On the other hand, they will die anyway, so why should we not eat them?

It is justified by our biology, humans being omnivorous creatures. Thus, no moral justification is needed. Morals do not factor in the more basic [than morals themselves] instinctive drives.

Is it moral to have sex? Is it moral to sleep? To urinate?

Morals only start to come into the equasion when you are starting to look at the particular circumstances of each event.

In short: the act of eating meat is neither moral nor immoral.

I do agree with this. It is similar to saying that wolves, or lions are immoral because they eat other animals.

That being said, humans do not have to be omnivorous creatures. We can survive without eating meat.

Morals only come into the equation when humans (or any other intelligent form of life capable of thinking about morality and acting on their thoughts) are involved, so just because other animals do it, it doesn't it moral for us to do it. We can stop eating meat, both on an intellectual and biological level (like you said, we're omnivores). Lions and wolves can't.

Note that I'm not a vegetarian -- however, the morality of eating other living beings has troubled me a bit recently.

I think humans are capable of doing many things that we do not do. Such as: not judge others based on social stereotypes, skin color, murder one another, etc....(which makes me wonder if we actually do possess such capability to have 'control' over such things).

I've been wondering about eating other animals as well, but I would have to agree with Asm that it is neither moral or immoral. It's nature.
As far as rape goes, there is nothing 'wrong' about it intrinsically, but as a society I think we deem it as immoral becasue inflicts psychological, physical and mental pain. Frankly, I wouldn't want someone to rape me.

 Sadly, we as humans, do not care for the feelings of the animals we eat as much as we do our own kind.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, morality is subjective.  I'm comfortable eating dead animals, and fully expect to be eaten when I too die.  It is part of the cycle of life, and not subject to moral judgement, in my view.

[AnimatedDirt]

Yes, morality is subjective.  I'm comfortable eating dead animals, and fully expect to be eaten when I too die.  It is part of the cycle of life, and not subject to moral judgement, in my view.

Would you object to being killed for the purpose of being a meal to someone or something?  I wonder....  I'm comfortable in what you mention above as I too partake of flesh.

[joeactor]

Note that I'm not a vegetarian -- however, the morality of eating other living beings has troubled me a bit recently.

So, it's perfectly ok to eat plants?
Seems like a somewhat arbitrary line.
The vast majority of what we eat is or was alive at some point.
We have evolved to be omnivores, and although it is possible to live without eating meat, it's not optimal for our biology.

Granted, most people could get by on a lot less meat, and we could treat our livestock much better.

... but I'm not giving up my burger yet.

(my salad is screaming),
JoeActor

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, morality is subjective.  I'm comfortable eating dead animals, and fully expect to be eaten when I too die.  It is part of the cycle of life, and not subject to moral judgement, in my view.

Would you object to being killed for the purpose of being a meal to someone or something?  I wonder....  I'm comfortable in what you mention above as I too partake of flesh.

I take that risk every time I go hiking.  We have both bears and mountain lions here, and a bear fatality a few weeks back about 40 miles from here.

[AnimatedDirt]

I take that risk every time I go hiking.  We have both bears and mountain lions here, and a bear fatality a few weeks back about 40 miles from here.

I understand you take the risk, but would you object?  Taking a risk doesn't mean you do or don't object, it simply means you're willing to risk the danger for the fun.  Would you willingly walk into a hungry animal's cage or domain knowing IT WILL eat you?  I wouldn't.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course I wouldn't fancy the end, but death comes in a million guises, and being eaten alive is one of them.  I don't waste time worrying about it.

Also, foreknowledge of death in humans is, if not unique in the animal kingdom, extremely rare, to our knowledge.

[LegendarySandwich]

The consensus I'm seeing here is that eating meat is natural -- which I can agree with, although I think that a lot of what we do shouldn't be dismissed from moral questioning just because it comes naturally to us.

Right now, I'm unsure; I'm still trying to develop a good morality system.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I must confess, the thought of a meatless Legendary Sandwich is causing me deep cognitive dissonance.

[Asmodean]

Isn't it also natural for a man to want cheat on his partner? And rape innocent people? And murder people he disagrees with?

Sorry, but you just tripped right over this sentence:

Morals only start to come into the equasion when you are starting to look at the particular circumstances of each event.

Let me explain: In cheating on your partner, it's not the intercourse itself that is considered immoral - it is the fact that you are doing it when someone is counting on you not to. In rape, it's not the sex that's bad, it's the fact that the rapist is forcing it on someone and possibly the way of doing it. It is not natural for humans to murder over disagreements. Fight - yes. Kill - no. However, the last argument does not fit into this discussion because it goes outside the boundaries of our basic instinctive drives.

I would define those things as wrong, in most cases.

If you define sex as being wrong, you must be a monk... o.O

EDIT: I would claim that, a lot of the time, it is moral to have sex, and to sleep, and to urinate.

So urinating is a moral thing rather than a biological necessity?   Note that we are NOT talking about who you are peeing on - just the act of doing it.

[Tanker]

I struggle with this question. On the one hand, eating sentient animals feels akin to murdering a human being. On the other hand, they will die anyway, so why should we not eat them?

I hate to be a stickler on this but the only (proven) "sentient" species is Man. Sentient means selfaware or conscious. So this sentence could be taken to mean you want people to be cannibals. Lol.

[Ihateyoumike]

It's simple really...

If god didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Vegetables are what food eats.

And pigs are mankind's greatest invention... they can take anything and turn it into bacon!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I struggle with this question. On the one hand, eating sentient animals feels akin to murdering a human being. On the other hand, they will die anyway, so why should we not eat them?

I hate to be a stickler on this but the only (proven) "sentient" species is Man. Sentient means selfaware or conscious. So this sentence could be taken to mean you want people to be cannibals. Lol.

By that definition, chimpanzees, dolphins, and gorillas are all sentient to a greater or lesser degree.  Dolphins recognize themselves in mirrors, and name themselves(which means they understand the concept of personhood).  We have much documentation of the great apes in captivity which have been taught ASL or computer communications using self-referential terms.

So that sentence only means what it reads. "Lol."

[Asmodean]

Vegetables are what food eats.

:hail:  

[LegendarySandwich]

Isn't it also natural for a man to want cheat on his partner? And rape innocent people? And murder people he disagrees with?

Sorry, but you just tripped right over this sentence:

Morals only start to come into the equasion when you are starting to look at the particular circumstances of each event.

Let me explain: In cheating on your partner, it's not the intercourse itself that is considered immoral - it is the fact that you are doing it when someone is counting on you not to. In rape, it's not the sex that's bad, it's the fact that the rapist is forcing it on someone and possibly the way of doing it. It is not natural for humans to murder over disagreements. Fight - yes. Kill - no. However, the last argument does not fit into this discussion because it goes outside the boundaries of our basic instinctive drives.

I would break it down farther and say that it's causing unnecessary suffering, which is wrong, but yes, I agree with you, except on the part about how it's not natural for humans to murder over disagreements -- how is it not natural? We perceive someone as an enemy, we kill them.

I would define those things as wrong, in most cases.

If you define sex as being wrong, you must be a monk... o.O

Rape is wrong (almost always, anyways), not consenting sex.

EDIT: I would claim that, a lot of the time, it is moral to have sex, and to sleep, and to urinate.

So urinating is a moral thing rather than a biological necessity?   Note that we are NOT talking about who you are peeing on - just the act of doing it.

I would define it as both -- you're causing yourself joy, even if just a tiny amount, without the expense of others, which is moral.