Moral Argument: Meat Eating

Hello again! Sorry for the later reply, the Holidays have me busy!  1.Yes I did mean that your argument was weak. While your examples were easiest to point out for their lack of common ground with the subject (living animals vs. inanimate objects such as computers) your argument was a bit weak at its core. I think it IS wrong to inflict suffering or take lives without NECESSITY. I know that each person has a different perspective on morals- which is why debating morals is difficult: there are so many gray areas! However, generally, I think people would agree that killing WITHOUT a specific need is wrong. So that it where your argument is weak: it is difficult to support killing if there is no need for it. Also, a comparison between lions eating gazelles and humans eating animals is very weak. This entire debate is about the morality of eating animals WITHOUT a need. Lions NEED to eat gazelles. If they did not, they would ultimately die. End of story. There are no Smart Dogs or Garden Burgers available for them. They must kill to get the nutrients they need to survive. Humans, however, live on a different plane. Humans have shaped their own reality, and have, in most countries, conquered the struggle for survival to a point where the average human is well fed without hunting or growing anything of his own. 2.Yes, I concede to your point. On its own, vegetarianism may not be healthiER than a meat-based diet. However, I think we can both agree that a vegetarian diet, well planned (not just eating pizza and bagels all day) provides everything a human being needs to live and be well. Thus, it supports one part of my thesis: we don't NEED meat to live. 3.As for the first part of your third point: Obviously, people who have some rare physiological disorder and HAVE to eat meat, or they will suffer for it fall under the category of NEEDING meat to survive, and thus they are not part of this debate. This debate is about the average modernized human, who buys food at a grocery store, and does not have any rare diseases which prevent him for going vegetarian. Moving on, my dog example was not weak at all. It was set up purposely to show you the inconsistencies of most people's views on animal welfare. WHY would the answer be "YES" if the animal was a cow, and "NO" if the animal was a dog? Surely, a cow has every right to life that a dog has? Both have brains, both have spinal cords, and both have emotions and memories. Just because the dog is the one sitting underneath the table at his master's feet, and the cow is the unfortunate soul ON the table does not make the cow any less worthy of being spared. Why is there such a moral inconsistency there? It's ok to kill and eat cows, but it's not ok to kill and eat dogs? If you went to India, you would find people who eat dogs because it is socially acceptable to eat dogs in that country. But here in America, we eat cows instead. If you told an Indian person that we Americans eat pounds and pounds of cow flesh, he/she would probably be appalled, as most Indians do not consume the flesh of a cow. (the cow is considered sacred in India) You see? Just as we are appalled by Indians eating dogs, they might be equally put out by our eating cows. So, it is all about social perspective. There is NO moral difference between eating dog meat and eating cow meat, only the social taboos we as Americans attach to the former. DOSCLAIMER*(This is not an argument to prove that eating puppies is ok, this example is only to illustrate the absurdity of such moral inconsistencies. All animals have a right to life, be it dog, cow, chicken, or human.) 4.Lastly, the plant argument. I did concede that plants have sensitivities and internal structures about which humans know little. However, without a brain, actual neurotransmitters, and emotions, I will not favor the plant's life over an animal's life. It is not about whether "the plant is able to SHOW suffering or not" Of course I would respect the rights and feelings of a vegative person, because that person, however incapable of responding outwardly, has everything going on inside him that I have going on inside me. He has a brain, he has a spinal cord, he has neurotransmitters, and he has been proven to possess developed emotions and thought processes, whether I can tell by looking at him or not. "plant-specific neurotransmitter-like molecule" This shows that they are talking about a plant SPECIFIC, neurotransmitter-LIKE molecule. These are not fully developed neurotransmitters, like you would find in a bird. So, when it comes right down to it, Given a choice to eat soybeans, which have neurotransmitter-LIKE molecules, and "attributes of intelligent behavior" but no brain, VS. A pig with a fully developed brain, real neurotransmitters, and emotions (not "attributes of intelligent behavior") I am going to eat the soybeans and spare the pig's life, hands down, no contest! As a final point: Basically, this is a comparison of a human's desire to eat meat, with the animal's suffering: Human: Does not need meat to survive. Some meats can be a good source of certain nutrients, yet he can easily obtain the same nutrients from plant sources. However, he/she WANTS to eat the meat. Be it for convenience, familiarity, or taste, the only reason the average modern human has to eat meat today is selfish WANT. Animal: However well he/she is treated before slaughter (and seeing as something like 90 percent of American meat is produced on a corporate level: FACTORY FARMED, you would be hard pressed to find well-treated meat animals. Farmforeword for stat: http://www.farmforward.com...) the animal must die when she/he reaches what humans deem 'market weight'. And for what? So a human can have bacon on their BLT sandwich instead of veggie bacon. Simple taste preference. That's the gist of it. In the beginning, humans had to kill in order to survive. It was kill and provide meat for the table, or STARVE. Now, we have evolved (socially) to a point where we do not need to kill to live. So, my question is, Now that we have removed the need for killing, why continue to do it? Why inflict suffering, why end lives, when the only cause for it is: "Well…It tastes good and. I've eaten it all my life, and…It…MAN DOES MEATLOAF TASTE GOOD." (Making a little humor there, but you see my point, I'm sure. We are killing to satisfy our own selfish wants. )