Argument for Vegetarianism

First off, I'm certain that it could be argued that there are more than 4 aspects that vegetarianism could be considered "better" than eating meat (and perhaps a similar and opposite argument could be posed about meat-eating, although I have yet to find these pros of eating meat). Let me see if I can take this one step at a time though: [Point 1.] Yes, indeed morals aren't set in stone, and vary from person to person, and over periods of time. A common starting point for interpreting what is morally right and wrong is to make choices based on the consequences, the benefits for others (i.e. choices made with other people in mind), as opposed to making cynical decisions or choices that are made to satisfy one's own pleasures. "Do to others what you would like to be done to you" is a commonly accepted moral standard and has appeared many times, and been phrased many different ways amongst different people throughout history (from ancient times to being the common principle of many religions). The concept of vegetarianism follows this morality and treats animals in a humane way (as animals that aren't generally used as a food source and humans are expected to be treated). Goveg.com words it pretty nicely, "Animals on today's factory farms have no legal protection from cruelty that would be illegal if it were inflicted on dogs or cats...Yet farmed animals are no less intelligent or capable of feeling pain than are the dogs and cats we cherish as companions." As you can see already, it would widely viewed as morally unjust if certain animals or humans were treated in the same way as livestock, but the fact that livestock is treated this unfairly compared to fellow sentient beings is sheer hypocrisy and nothing less. The only reason we don't eat animals like cats is the social stigma associated with eating these particular animals (which isn't present in certain countries, whose people have no problem frying up a dog or cat). I've never eaten a cat, but I hear they taste quite like chicken. Chickens, cows, and especially pigs are all rather intelligent animals, too. That pretty much elimintates intelligence and taste as reasons for choosing one animal over another. So, is there any good reason that it would be morally repulsive to eat an animal such as a dog or cat and yet morally justifiable if other animals such as pigs and chickens are still eaten? As for the desert comment, animals NEED plants. Plants are at the bottom of the food chain. Every single organism ultimately traces their food back to plants getting their energy through photosynthesis. An area without plants simply cannot sustain life (plants can constantly be shipped or imported into this area, but plants are plants regardless of whether you get them from your garden or Wal-Mart, and we cannot live without them). So, an area without plants could sustain neither humans or livestock as an area without water could not sustain humans or livestock. Livestock, such as pigs or cows, tend to use up more resources than an equivalent number of humans, and if there is a limited number of plant life (or any resources for that matter) it would be most unwise to attempt to bring in more animals that need more resources. And finally, I'm not saying that consuming the flesh of animals is necessarily wrong in circumstances when there is no other food source (however unlikely that might be), I'm simply saying that those are not the circumstances in places like the U.S. today. Americans eat 248 lbs of meat per person every year. This isn't an "eat meat or you die" scenario- far from it. This is more along the lines of Americans having more than sufficient sources of food without the intentional, enormous suffering brought on by the meat industy, but continuing to eat meat to satiate their taste buds. Sound familiar? Inducing suffering without considering the suffering of these victims simply to satiate one's lusts? That goes back to the reason why eating meat can be viewed as less morally agreeable than using plant sources to fill your stomach. What it ultimately comes down to is humans simply putting their tastebuds above the lives of sentient animals. [Point 2.] As for health, I'll just take this straight from one of many sources (this is a direct quotation from http://www.goveg.com...): "Leading health experts agree that going vegetarian is the single-best thing we can do for ourselves and our families. Healthy vegetarian diets support a lifetime of good health and provide protection against numerous diseases, including our country's three biggest killers: heart disease, cancer, and strokes. The American Dietetic Association states that vegetarians have 'lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; … lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer' and that vegetarians are less likely than meat-eaters to be obese.1 Well-planned vegetarian diets provide us with all the nutrients that we need, minus all the saturated fat, cholesterol, and contaminants found in animal flesh, eggs, and dairy products." If you need further elaboration on the health benefits of vegetarianism, I would be happy to further this aspect of the debate if you are unsatisfied. [Point 3.] The Sun is ultimately the direct source of energy for life on Earth. Plants are the next step, and the closest we humans can get to the direct source as we are unable to convert sunlight straight into energy our bodies can use. Herbivorous animals get energy from these plants, but after it gets diluted through their system and they convert as much of it as they can into energy to sustain themselves, a small fractional percentage of the original energy is left for the next animal in the food chain's consumption. I'll throw in some more quotations from GoVeg.com: "It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat." This is...shockingly wasteful if we are to rely on this meat as a major food source and reduces the amount of grain that could be used to feed hungry starving people in third-world countries and everywhere else. "All animals require many times more calories, in the form of grain, soybeans, oats, and corn, than they can possibly return in the form of animal flesh for meat-eaters to consume...The world's cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people—more than the entire human population on Earth.19 About 20 percent of the world's population, or 1.4 billion people, could be fed with the grain and soybeans fed to U.S. cattle alone.20" I could continue arguing this point, but I believe the point has been established and I will elaborate further only if you ask me to, as I have probably already listed more than enough articles at the bottom to keep you busy. And at your insistence I'll hold off on the environmental aspect. Or if you don't care for the elaboration I shall try and summarize: 1. Animals are killed to satiate our taste buds when there are other sources of sustenance available to us. Putting our taste buds above animals is morally unjust. 2. The risk of most major U.S. killers is greatly reduced by adhering to a well-balanced vegetarian diet. 3. "All animals require many times more calories...than they can possibly return in the form of animal flesh for meat-eaters to consume". Using animals as a main food source wastes valuable food that could feed many more hungry mouths. For more reading: On the moral standard of "Do to others what you would like to be done to you": http://en.wikipedia.org... On cruelty to animals: http://www.goveg.com... On American meat consumption and habitat destruction: http://veggierevolution.blogspot.com... On the link between World Hunger and meat: http://www.goveg.com... http://www.goveg.com...