How can you morally justify eating animals if you live in a developed country?
How can you morally justify eating animals if you live in a developed country?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
They are delicious.
They aren't human.
Why does not being human make them acceptable to eat?
A cow would eat you without a second though? Last I checked they're herbivores.
>To make Covenant with bruit Beasts, is impossible; because not understanding our speech, they understand not, nor accept of any translation of Right; nor can translate any Right to another; and without mutuall acceptation, there is no Covenant.
By that logic, non-verbal humans have no rights.
Why? It says nothing about mutuall verbal acceptation?
If someone can't speak or understand language, can you explain moral concepts of rights to them and confirm they've understood?
If someone can't understand any language (including sign language, braille, etc.) they are guaranteed to be clinically retarded since they are unable to ever learn anything. These people are usually deprived of their rights and have some kind of legal guardian.
You still generally aren't allowed to kill or torture them just because it would be convenient for you.
Back in the day people with such severe disabilities were often left to die. Today we grant them certain standards of care even though there is no moral necessity to do so. The situation is quite similar to animal welfare laws when you think about it, both exist because they make us feel better.
I think if you went on TV and said there is no moral imperative to keep them alive if we can you would be lynched in the town square within 15 minutes.
Violence is not an argument. And I doubt that anyways, keep in mind we're not talking about funny downies who can live reasonably independent with some assistance, but people with the who need 24 hour care. Not many would agree, but few could make a non-religious argument for why they disagree.
How about veil of ignorance?
Few people know what that is. Also I would consider that thought experiment a strong argument in favor of actively killing severely mentally disabled people so it's probably not a good idea.
How do you figure? Would you want to be killed?
Obviously, who wants to live that way? And how cruel do you have to be to inflict that fate on others?
Your assumption you'd want to die in their shoes isn't worth much if you can't provide any evidence that they generally do want to die.
I apologize if I wasn't clear about what I was talking, but now you're conflating real life and the veil of ignorance thought experiment.
The veil of ignorance doesn't mean much if you can just assume you'd feel differently than the vast majority of people in those circumstances; if you can do that it can be used to justify anything.
>The veil of ignorance doesn't mean much
I agree, that's why I don't particularly like the thought experiment, but I wasn't the one to bring it up.
Read the remaining portion of the sentence.
I don't see what that changes. Again, you are conflating real life where we are born and have to live with the hand we're dealt with a thought experiment where we can pick and choose, not the hand we will be dealt, but at least which hands we don't want to see under any circumstance in advance.
In the first case the "people in those circumstances" may not want to die because they don't know anything else and probably don't even understand the concept of death. In the latter case you have fully rational beings making this decision. I wasn't even aware of it but Rawls himself wrote
>In the original position, then, the parties want to insure for their descendants the best genetic endowment (assuming their own to be fixed). The pursuit of reasonable policies in this regard is something that earlier generations owe to later ones, this being a question that arises between generations. Thus over time a society is to take steps [...] to prevent the diffusion of serious defects. These measures are to be guided by principles that the parties would be willing to consent to for the sake of their successors.
You can obviously debate what "reasonable policies" are but apparently I'm not the first one to feel that way.
Idk know about eating you, but that cow will absolutely trample the shit out of you without a second thought.
pigs certainly would, and they are much smarter than cows.
If you were the size of a chick yeah. Even herbivores eat animals when its low effort.
But I am not, in fact, the size of a chick.
Morals are for humans. AN animal such as a cow or chicken cannot understand what "Morals" are and thus morals don't apply to them.
Certain humans don't understand either.
Irrelevant. Especially since all animals don't understand
Wrong and wrong. Severely mentally handicapped humans cannot comprehend morals. And depending on your definition of morals, there are certain animals that do have a rudimentary grasp of morals.
Of course you won't be able to teach a pig about the categorical imperative, but there are humans who don't have the intellectual capabilities to comprehend it either.
>have a rudimentary grasp of morals.
You literally cant prove this. An animal might seem to do something moral but does it understand that it is moral? And just because handicapled people might not understand moral values, its a moral virtue that we innately have to take care lf other human beings.
>An animal might seem to do something moral but does it understand that it is moral?
Elephants, crows and perhaps other animals have funeral rites of sorts, which would appear to imply the sort of thinking that can ground at least a rudimentary understanding of morals. And of course other animals have analogous brain structures.
>And just because handicapled people might not understand moral values, its a moral virtue that we innately have to take care lf other human beings.
That's kind of begging the question though, isn't it? What is it about the "human" category that imparts moral worth even to subjects who are themselves incapable of grasping morality?
>Elephants, crows and perhaps other animals have funeral rites of sorts.
Again, unless an elephant can explain to us it understands the concept of "good," beyond personal instinct and emotion then its unprovable that animals understand moral values. An elephant might save its calf from a ditch but unless you can prove it understands that saving something is GOOD regardless of instinct then you dont have a point.
>What is it about the "human" category that imparts moral worth even to subjects who are themselves incapable of grasping morality?
Trannies use this argument sometimes. "What about women without a womb?" A human being is still naturally ordered towards understanding moral values. Its partly why we generally think killing infants is a bad thing because even though they lack certain qualities or understanding theyre naturally ordered towards it and will its expected they'll develop that understanding. So just because a woman doesnt have a womb doesnt make her any less woman in essence and value, even thouhgh thats what a woman is and whats shes geared towards. And a human being is naturally geared towards moral values.
>Again, unless an elephant can explain to us it understands the concept of "good," beyond personal instinct and emotion then its unprovable that animals understand moral values. An elephant might save its calf from a ditch but unless you can prove it understands that saving something is GOOD regardless of instinct then you dont have a point.
You're just sidestepping my argument. Funeral rites imply a degree of abstract thought in connection to other subjects. That is a different line of evidence than saying simply that they act altruistically.
>Trannies use this argument sometimes. "What about women without a womb?" A human being is still naturally ordered towards understanding moral values. Its partly why we generally think killing infants is a bad thing because even though they lack certain qualities or understanding theyre naturally ordered towards it and will its expected they'll develop that understanding. So just because a woman doesnt have a womb doesnt make her any less woman in essence and value, even thouhgh thats what a woman is and whats shes geared towards. And a human being is naturally geared towards moral values.
So your argument rests on a teleological understanding of nature? I can't say I agree with that, but it's hard to argue against because it's usually either rooted in theology or feelings.
>You're just sidestepping my argument. Funeral rites imply a degree of abstract thought in connection to other subjects. That is a different line of evidence than saying simply that they act altruistically.
Elephants put leaves over a body. Humans observe it and come to their own conclusions and perceptions as evident by the contrast of opinions between mine and yours. An observation of elephant putting leaves over a dead body is just that, any immediate conclusion is speculation and not concrete evidence. I can easily say that a monkey holding a gun is concrete evidence of its understanding of what a gun is and what its capable of. Likewise, animals doing moral deeds doesnt follow with understanding what these deeds are on a fundamental level.
>Likewise, animals doing moral deeds doesnt follow with them understanding what these deeds are on a fundamental/epistemelogical level.
Then how do we know humans understand it on a fundamental level?
Plus all humans have the ability to learn morals while it is impossible for a beast of the land to learn what morals are.
They're not conscious, ergo no suffering.
So it'd be perfectly fine for someone to just torture a random cat for fun? No one would accept that
Everyone accepts that outside of the safety of the internet.
A friend of mine was a hells angel and they killed cats as an initiation rite and he still scored normie environmentalist bitched left and right.
Morality is just an aspect of power you can project at a given time.
If it wasn't a marker of ASPD, then no it wouldn't be. Its the same reason for why fucking animals is illegal but killing them is not, people that fuck animals are generally mentally unwell.
The animals are subjugated en masse because they are unable to fight back against humans. The animals are thusly bred over thousands of years to be eaten. Why should we eat the animals? Because vegetables are the scenic route to dysgenics. Grains are the highway.
Depending on your model of sentience, this world is arguably a zero sum game. If it isn't us who are on top, it will be another species and, if we are being truly moral, the problem will then be of concern to them. In that sense, predation/consumption of biological material is a fundamental problem with biological life itself. It is impossible for any animal to be truly moral. Thus the most moral thing that any animal can do is either accept the terms and go rogue or participate in the karmic burning, returning to something else some equivalence of what it takes.
The way the human race works, it's impossible to trust an authority to insitute a prohibition against any kind of consumption. In that sense, the cessation of the use of animal products is and always has been up to the individual.
They are most definitely conscious. Most probably as are the ants, spiders and flies that you kill. So are the hundreds of millions of men that go to inevitably die in war.
Of course exactly what consciousness entails is up for debate. Something might be conscious but frequently experience such states of mind that it is indifferent to any kind of physical stimulus.
dog cry when i kick it
i cry when im kicked
dog fears being kicked and so do i
¿What makes his suffering less suffering that mine?
He is an animal and is beneath humans.
All humans are superior to animals in every conceivable way. You will cherrypick litterale braindead people or those with complete debilitating diseases but that is simply a cope.
There is a big difference between enslaving a human being vs eating a beast of the land.
Humans are superior to animals in every conceivable way. They are cognitively inferior and should be treated as such. You may say "that's what they said about the black slaves" yet at the time they were proven wrong by abolitionists actively teaching escaped slaves how to read and write. Sure gorrilas can learn sign language and can write but that is the extent of it. A horse cannot appreciate a fine price of art. A giraffe can't look at the sunset and find contentment or happiness. They are mentally unable to.
If you really think animals are our equals you are mentally unstable or retarded. Period.
Show me the great works of writing of the Plato Rhino or Socrates Hippo and I will gladly read their works.
Give me the Ceasar Eagle and I shall walk through the streets of his Empire
Find me the musical masterpieces of the Chopin Snake and I will dance and listen with enthusiasm.
No? You can't? Well that is because they are simple beasts of the land.
Animals are our food. Our sustenance. Our servants. And companions when we deem them deserving. Such is life when you are below us in the food chain. Such is life being inferior.
>you want to abuse animals!
Never said that. Eating animals isn't abuse. I would never approve of the kitten stomping threads of old nor would I attend dog fights in the ghetto. It serves no purpose. Eating is a purpose. Using a horse or donkey to pull a plow is a need. Having a dog for hunting is a bonus or a cat for companionship is good for mental health. People who abuse animals are no better than animals and is proven to be future psychopaths or murderers.
Cope and seethe all you want. I am right
No, animals are not our equals. But veganism as a moral conclusion doesn't require giving animals equal moral value to humans, it only requires giving them any (non-infintesimal) moral value at all.
they are yummy
Because it just tastes good and vegans are mostly pushy mentally ill annoying shits. That being said I'm not gonna knock someone for going vegetarian for health reasons. Its just the kind of people that shit attracts makes me not want to bother.
They'd eat me without a second thought.
I don't, and I don't eat them. If somebody provides a good reason though, I will start eating them again.
My blood tests came out great at my last doctor's appointment, so this argument won't do it for me.
The average person doesn't give a shit about their health and is lacking a shitton of vitamins and minerals regardless of whether or not they eat meat
doesn't make it not a good reason
All of that can be supplemented with a non-meat and non-animal source, though
So why not just eat the meat then and skip the extra steps?
Because the production of meat involves forcing a sentient being to suffer unnecessarily. The same reason why torturing a cat is wrong
Stop watching Disney movies, and realize that all animals, except a few great apes, are non-thinking entities who just exist to feed diets that aren't backed up by Big Pharma pills or hippie vegan restaurants. If it lives it's full life in nature, it either gets ripped to death by a predator or collapses from old age, and that's not even taking into accounts domesticated species whose sole existence and breeding patterns are designed around them being killed during a hunting season.
So you have no problem torturing a cat for fun then, since they are non-thinking entities
A thinking entity would find torture reprehensible, an activity of an impulsive sociopath.
That's your own evaluation nothing that follows necessarily from the facts. What's the point in asking for a moral justification if you operate on a subjective basis for morality?
I might as well ask how can you refuse to eat animals when seeing them die gives me the greatest pleasure?
Nta but there's at least two ways to go about this. Either build some rudimentary framework from basic principles and work from there (morality is an intersubjective system of conduct/acts of will that governs what one ought to do -> which entities capable of subjective experience should be covered and why? which forms of conduct fall under the "ought category") or point out contradictions in existing moral systems and potentially provide more consistent amendments to these frameworks.
The production of meat doesn't neccessarily involve animal suffering, that's just your retarded interpretation.
The vast majority does in practice.
Depends entirely on the country
I'm not convinced it's even possible to serve the developed world's current levels of meat consumption without factory farming.
The biggest stride I see being made in the industry is in-ovo sexing which allows you to avoid having to grind up freshly hatched chicks to keep the operation commercially viable. And that's honestly really good, but even if we remove all the sources of unnecessary suffering, I still object to the unnecessary killing of animals, so I won't start eating meat until lab grown is viable.
I would really love for meat eaters to at least support only producers who inflict the least amount of harm while the animal is still alive. It's not what I'd like to see as the end point, but it is still much better than what we have now.
>I still object to the unnecessary killing of animals
It isn't unneccessary. Humans aren't and will never be herbivores, we need meat for sustenance. Vegan diets aren't healthy.
That's not to say that eating as much meat as we do today is good either, but we shouldn't stop eating meat entirely.
As long as my blood tests are good, I don't see the issue.
When did you become a historical figure?
Was it when your mommy dropped you?
>humans need meat for sustenance
>I don't eat meat and I'm doing fine
That's just not true, though, ask literally any nutritional association.
Nothing wrong with free range milk/meat farms. Seems the most ethical choice: animals live a couple of years safe and free of predators and one day get electrostunned and painlessly die of blood loss. Intensive farms however are the stuff of nightmares, can only imagine what goes on in asia
But it is necessary
It's necessary conditionally, not absolutely. That's why you need to establish whether the condition holds more value than the live of an animal.
If you want to live in this Developed Country best you start eating Animals or gtfo and go to an Undeveloped Country.
Not a rational argument. You got anything better?
I'll admit I'd have issued if I were into bodybuilding, but I don't really care about that. I just recently escaped skinnyfat mode after being out of shape for my whole life and that's enough for me for now.
is our health board newbie.
is our history board.
take your meds & gtfo.
I still don't see any reasons for eating meat. If I'm not into bodybuilding, what's the utility?
Onions is toxic to humans
I hardly eat any onions (aside from onions in processed foods, the last time I had some was a miso soup I made a couple months ago), so this one doesn't really apply to me either.
Wrong. That's only true if you have a legitimate allergy to it
I heard its great for building T levels but I'm not too familiar with it other than it making a good addition to certain dishes. you do you I guess.
>slow, painful disease
>belly ripped apart by wolves while you're still alive
>roaring bear or cat jaws clamping down on your neck
>vs a bolt in the brain
All animals die, farm animals die the quickest and with the least horror and fear.
Developed the Country to eat Animals.
It is nutritious, it is delicious, and if your country has broad animal welfare laws the animals you eat have had happy lives.
god said it was ok
No country is developed enough currently to exclude all animal products. It's not feasible now maybe later.
Veganism is in essence just an extreme form of reductarisnism anyway. Most vegans will tell you that we should drop the use of animal products in contexts where it is unnecessary and seek to eventually eliminate the rest through the development of new technology.
Sure, but the vegans are the ones actually doing as much as they feasibly can.
Yeah I know, I'm vegan. Or rather I guess one could argue we could do even more, but we're taking the most simple and impactful step.
But my point is that arguments about feasibility don't really work against veganism because veganism only promotes what is actually feasible.
It's not a jab at veganism it's just that realistic we aren't capable of stopping all animal products in such country from being made and consumed, it's not feasible now but we can work towards achieving it someday later in the future.
Yeah there are some barriers. But of course the purpose of avoiding animal products is both to create economic incentives and to promote the idea that veganism is both reasonable and practicable for a large part of the population.
Kind of related, one of my motivations for getting in shape was that me being seen as the weak basedboy archetype would hurt the credibility of the idea of veganism in the eyes of people who I interact with.
God is a meat-eater. Satan is a vegetarian.
So morally, be like God, not the Devil.
I’m a hypocrite, is all. I know it’s not okay for me to eat animals, but I do anyway because I’m a piece of shit like many people.
Humans still need vitamin B, otherwise they get all sorts of bad side effects due to deficiency.
Although I suppose eggs and dairy could de enough but I'm not sure.
There are lots of plant-based sources of B12, like nutritional yeast.
Because I can come up with arguments on why eating meat is bad and they can’t
They are objectively lesser beings and they have no soul. The type of animal I consume is related to my cultural taboos. I don't eat dogs or cats because I consider them to be among the highest order of domesticated animals, but I disagree that eating them is immoral.
Souls aren't real.
No it isn't.
Why is there a need to justify it? We are the top predators, we eat what we choose to eat.
Yeah you're right, it ultimately doesn't matter. But you can see from this thread that many people feel a need to justify their actions.
I just accept the fact that I am a somewhat shit person
It's my right, simply a perk of living in a developed country
It pleases my ego
I'm hungry and higher on the chain.
Animals don't have rights
The interest of one animal to not be eaten is irrelevant to my desire to eat it
There is no such thing as animal exploitation because humanity has complete ownership over all non-human life
Also I'm a vegetarian because I think it's wrong to support factory farming but I'm perfectly happy to kill and eat animals
I dont have to moraly justify it
I don't. I'm just a tiny bit immoral, it's fine.
Tastes good and you can't prove that's immoral or unjustified
Corpses are food and wasting food is unethical
Because my teeth and forward oriented eyes says I was put in this world to kill and eat them. Because a vegan diet is too inefficient when it comes to protein, because as hinted at above, we're not evolved for it. A violent death is entirely natural for prey animals and the notion that morality applies to my food is silly.
As an addendum, the vegan notion of a world wide switch to agriculture fails to comprimend that not all land is suited for crops and that much of what is used for grazing is because of that, or to make sure that the land stays suitable for crops by having cattle shit all over it, thus fertilizing it and making the world less reliant on fertilizer, which is a concerningly limited resource globally.
Global veganism simply isn't practical. The issue isn't that humans bad for eating meat, it's that there are too fucking many of us so factory farming becomes necessary to feed the lot. Most of the developed world is already downsizing and the only continent with net population growth is Africa, which is also just a matter of time before they follow suit.
>How can you morally justify eating animals if you live in a developed country?
Who cares? Abstract ideas like justice aren't very interesting, and meat is tasty.
Cultivating plants necessitates killing animals. If you rely on agriculture, you must kill pests, and you will inevitably kill animals while harvesting crops.
If you want to minimize your impact on animals, you should not reproduce, and kill yourself.
In these days I can justify killing and eating FARM animals, but not going to the deep forest to kill deer, ducks, horses, or whatever.
Imaging killing a 3 month lamb just because you want to have a good dinner that you will poop the following day. Looking at the 3 month lamb to his eyes and say to him: we are going to end your life just because a fat fuck want to have 1 dinner.
>leave deer or lamb alone
>gets ripped apart by wolves 1 week later
You only get vegans in cities because you have to live in la-la land to imagine all these animals dying peacefully of old age in the wild. Or not to imagine them dying at all, as if they would have lived forever if not for the hunter.
You are lunatics. You can do what you want, but you do not have the moral high ground.
Hitler was a vegetarian and wanted the Nazis to be vegetarians as well. I have to be as anti-fascist as humanly possible.
I've heard it said that regular vegans feel pressure within the vegan community to go further than regular vegan, to go raw vegan or fruitarian or whatever.
You're already saving the animals, so what's the purpose beyond that?
I've never experienced anything like that. It kind of goes the opposite way in that people who are not primarily motivated by ethics are sometimes called "plant based dieters" instead of vegans in the vegan community. So because of that, raw vegans and fruitarians are generally seen as crackpots who engage in potentially unhealthy or even dangerous behaviours with no underlying moral reasons to go beyond normie veganism.
t. vegan (sorry, I had to tell you)
It is my desire.
the better question is, what are you aiming at by implying that we have to "morally justify" it? who died and made you judge of what should and what should not be "morally justified"?
the human predilection to justify one's stance is an evolutionary leftover meant to sway the opinion of the group. but meat-eaters are the majority, so there's no such need. get lost.
How's high school these days?
I'm not an anti-vegan, but... honestly, what does it actually mean to say a moral claim is true? And how do we know?
>throws around 'isms' as if they meant anything.
listen, boy, I said we have no obligation to justify anything. we do it if we need to sway public opinion, and some of you do it because you are NPCs who accepted the societal pressure to do so. deal with it.
here's my argument, can anyone refute it?
1) humans are animals
2) animals eat other animals to survive
3) therefore, its ok for humans to eat animals
1)humans are animals
2)animals rape each other to reproduce
3)therefore it's ok for humans to rape each other
I'd bite the bullet on that cute satire of my argument, and say "yes."
If the future of mankind would rely on men raping women, it would be the moral thing to do to rape them, to continue our existence.
>If the future of mankind would rely on men raping women, it would be the moral thing to do to rape them, to continue our existence.
There you go, you captured the vegan argument. If you need to eat meat, knock yourself out. If you don't need to eat meat, stop eating meat. Most people in western countries don't need to eat meat, which is why vegans shill veganism in western countries.
>Most people in western countries don't need to eat meat
Because malnutrition is bad.
But you can get adequate nutrition without eating meat.
Why doesn't that logic apply to humans? "Who cares if I killed him, he lived in a dangerous neighborhood, he was probably going to get killed anyway".
Female animals usually won't need to be raped if they are ovulating, and if they aren't ovulating they won't reproduce.
Humans are superior to animals in every way and have different standards
Beef is yummy
Because we still need the food, being vegan is privledge, we feed animals like cows mostly with greens that we can not break down ourselves ex grass, the cow then feeds on the grass until it will be butcherd and give us nutritious meat, this is still needed in all developed countries. But If you insted want to take 10 pills a day just to cover your needs a long with your protein cricket bar then go crazy.
Just so you know they like to say that insects are very nutritous and protein rich, but most of those proteins in insects we can not break down.
There's a reason 'grass-fed beef' is something that's advertised as a special positive quality- most beef is fed on corn and onions. I agree it's not equally feasible for everyone to go vegan, though- that's why we need systemic change, not just individual action, even if individuals should do what they can.
What's up with this "vegans eat ze bugs" crap? Most vegans don't even eat honey.
They're confusing people who are actually vegan (for animal rights) with people who are plant-based for purely environmental reasons; the latter are more likely to advocate insect-eating.
The bible explicitly says meat is ok
Doesn't it also speak approvingly of slavery?
I don't fucking care.
we should eat less meat but it's unreasonable to expect everyone to stop eating meat altogether. It's significantly harder and more expensive to eat a complete diet with only vegetables as it does with meat.
The average person eats way more meat than nutritionally neccisary, but it is neccisary unless you carefully plan out your diet.
1. Theism is bunk
2. Cant have morality without an objective standard/God
3. Morality doesnt exist
Eating animals benefits me in a variety of ways so i will continue to eat them.
they taste good
there are morally unassailable positions to take, but there is no justification in participating in animal slaughter to eat meat if you have the means to go vegetarian. that being said, it is also not a condemnation. eat whatever you want, just don't expect to convince anyone of your ethical superiority in this topic specifically.
t. meat eater, i have salmon ready to eat tonight that I will steam in a black bean onions sauce.
I need to produce optimal DHEA levels and the hormes DHEA produced in order to function and be in good health as a non-obese person. Producing insufficient DHEA can be disasterous for health especially in developing young people as well as contributing to male infertility. DHEA cannot be sourced and utilized by the human body from any plant-based foods. Supplementation exists and it is useful to some, but prolonged use causes dose dependency, which I have ethical, philosophical and medically sound reasons for avoiding.
Solve this problem and allow men to live with optimal health without slaughtering and eating animals or eating eggs and I will then reconsider veganism.
Doesn't the body produce DHEA itself? What are the precursors to it?
Yes, and the body can produce enough to sustain life in most cases. But vegans produce significantly less than meat eaters and even lacto-vegetarians. The precursor for DHEA is pregnenolone which is made by the body with cholesterol.
With all that said, veganism and lacto-vegetarian diets are scientifically valid, useful diets to some for both health and ethical reasons. in fact both diets produce enough DHEA to help with cardiac remodeling, the primary medical benefits of these diets. But that really changes nothing around what I've said. I'm not obese or in need of such remodeling, such diets aren't optimal for me, even though they may be more optimal for many compared to what they're currently doing.
Omnivore boomer Chad vs skinnyfat millennial vegan
I don't justify eating animals but i still eat them.
If i could i'd eat lab grown meat but it's not viable yet.