I'm a meat eater. I don't want to give up meat. But after giving the subject more and more thought, it seems vegetarianism is a more moral path. I have a few pretty weak moral justifications for eating meat, but they are just that: justifications. I feel eventually I'm going to come to the ultimate conclusion that slaughtering animals for food is immoral, and I'll be at a crossroads: follow my morals at the cost of never eating meat again or live with a tiny bit of guilt (that is less powerful than the benefit of eating meat) every time I eat meat.
So, I pretty much know all of standard vegetarianism-is-moral arguments. Can people provide me with some good meat-eating-is-moral arguments?
By the way, I'm not just looking for additional justifications. I haven't fully concluded meat eating is immoral. I'm just looking for good arguments from all sides before I make up my mind. The advantage is going towards vegetarianism right now, but is being cancelled out by my bias of loving meat.
A.) It's natural. Animals in the wild do it all the time.
B.) It's natural. PLANTS in the wild do it all the time.
See the Venus Flytrap and all the other carnivorous plants. Animals eat animals. Plants eat animals.
What could be argued as immoral is, for instance, cows being kept in a single pent their entire life, fattened up from day 1 until the day they're slaughtered. Or painful killing for the animals that end up on our dinner table.
I'm a meat eater. I don't want to give up meat. But after giving the subject more and more thought, it seems vegetarianism is a more moral path.
Why?
I have a few pretty weak moral justifications for eating meat,
No, you don't understand: there is ZERO reason to need moral justification for eating meat. The idea that you would is absurd.
I feel eventually I'm going to come to the ultimate conclusion that slaughtering animals for food is immoral,
WHY? Should we say wolves are morally incorrect for eating deer?
and I'll be at a crossroads: follow my morals at the cost of never eating meat again or live with a tiny bit of guilt (that is less powerful than the benefit of eating meat) every time I eat meat.
This is sad. Seriously. What, all of a sudden lost your free will or the ability to think for yourself?
So, I pretty much know all of standard vegetarianism-is-moral arguments. Can people provide me with some good meat-eating-is-moral arguments?
A.) It's natural. Animals in the wild do it all the time.
B.) It's natural. PLANTS in the wild do it all the time.
See the Venus Flytrap and all the other carnivorous plants. Animals eat animals. Plants eat animals.
What could be argued as immoral is, for instance, cows being kept in a single pent their entire life, fattened up from day 1 until the day they're slaughtered. Or painful killing for the animals that end up on our dinner table.
Exactly. Not to mention that there are times when we have to.
This is like what's going on here. They have controlled deer hunting where I live, deer season starts up now. And you get idiots who say, "Oh no, we're horrible for hunting the deer". Which is stupid. The deer are running around unchecked because we killed all their natural predators. At about 24 or so individuals per square mile, the deer are eating at a rate that exceeds a forest's rate to regenerate. We've got places that are 3 or more times that number in deer population.
I just think it's so idiotic to object to hunting, or any slaughter of meat. It shows an obvious disconnect from nature and reality.
Well there's a reason why nature has evolved to eat meat, and it's because moralities aren't this mystical force, they are just what are good and bad for individuals. If things need to eat meat to survive efficiently, then that's just another part of the universe, or another thing life is capable of, nothing more. When it becomes no longer efficient to eat meat, then everyone could become a vegetarian. But, in order to do that there has to be enough plants or other ways to get energy so that the entire plant population doesn't become extinct to over consumption. Right now, everyone being a vegetarian isn't efficient because the plant population would die. Meat eating right now is efficient for animals to get energy, so animals adapt to do it.
Ever try eating vegetarian? It's a real pain in the ass, let alone pure vegen. It's far easier to eat something like specific lean meats like fish, but fish have mercury in them so it's still less of a burden keep your diet varied.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Animals also do what we would call "rape" and "murder" if they were human. Natural != justified.
Try this instead:
A) Most animals are not participants or potential participants in human society.
B) Most animals are not self-aware.
C) Most vegetarians are so obnoxious that it gives me pleasure to eat meat out of sheer spite. OM NOM NOM
How do you know most animals aren't self-aware and why should your judgement transcend the personal perspective of animals themselves? What if they don't think its obnoxious at all? For them, it's probably just normal, or what they need to do to survive. This is why it doesn't happen as much in civilized society, because most people don't need to murder or rape to survive or get what they want. However, some animals do. Are they just suppose to let themselves die because you don't like that they want to have their own territory (or whatever)? Or are they just automatically suppose to let you eat them because they are trying to defend their offspring? Because that's basically what you say when you say you enjoy the fact that they are dead and eating their flesh because you don't like them.
I eat meat for 2 reasons I reckon and, I won't thump the Bible on either of them - 1) Because I can and, 2) because it tastes great!
When money gets tight (as it often does) I eat vegan (almost) - Top Raman and I splurge at times with fine shreaded beef jerky ('snuff jerky') added with the water.
I eat meat for 2 reasons I reckon and, I won't thump the Bible on either of them - 1) Because I can and, 2) because it tastes great!
When money gets tight (as it often does) I eat vegan (almost) - Top Raman and I splurge at times with fine shreaded beef jerky ('snuff jerky') added with the water.
And why does it taste great? Because for millions of years, it's been an efficient thing to eat meat. Just like sugar is good for our energy, so it tastes good to us so that we will eat it. Just like things are also bitter, because they may be poisonous.
If you believe that unnecessarily hurting other living creatures for self-benefit is wrong, then you're always going to see yourself as an immoral person, and not eating meat isn't going to change that fact.
I agree with the notion that morality should define your eating habits. That is absolutely absurd and I'm a vegetarian! Any moral justification for what you eat or do not eat is a bunch of self-righteous, pretentious BS. There's plenty wrong with the treatment of said animals, but not with the eating of them. It's the food chain, a system of checks and balances formed through millennia of evolution and adaptation. What logic is there in ignoring it through convoluted moral justification?
How do you know most animals aren't self-aware and why should your judgement transcend the personal perspective of animals themselves? What if they don't think its obnoxious at all? For them, it's probably just normal, or what they need to do to survive. This is why it doesn't happen as much in civilized society, because most people don't need to murder or rape to survive or get what they want. However, some animals do. Are they just suppose to let themselves die because you don't like that they want to have their own territory (or whatever)? Or are they just automatically suppose to let you eat them because they are trying to defend their offspring? Because that's basically what you say when you say you enjoy the fact that they are dead and eating their flesh because you don't like them.
BS didn't say he doesn't like animals. He was merely pointing out the fallacy that is to say "what is natural is right". His answers are succinct but really all that are needed for a reasonable, rational human to feel justified in eating animals.
And why does it taste great? Because for millions of years, it's been an efficient thing to eat meat. Just like sugar is good for our energy, so it tastes good to us so that we will eat it. Just like things are also bitter, because they may be poisonous.
You're misunderstanding. It doesn't taste great because of some eon-spanning selective process. It tastes great because it tastes great.
BS didn't say he doesn't like animals. He was merely pointing out the fallacy that is to say "what is natural is right". His answers are succinct but really all that are needed for a reasonable, rational human to feel justified in eating animals.
What is natural isn't right or wrong, it just is what it is. Although, let's just let him/her answer for him/herself.
@Limecat: It doesn't JUST taste great. Nothing about the human body just happens. That comment shows blatant disregard for the delicate process of human evolution.
How do you know most animals aren't self-aware and why should your judgement transcend the personal perspective of animals themselves? What if they don't think its obnoxious at all? For them, it's probably just normal, or what they need to do to survive. This is why it doesn't happen as much in civilized society, because most people don't need to murder or rape to survive or get what they want. However, some animals do. Are they just suppose to let themselves die because you don't like that they want to have their own territory (or whatever)? Or are they just automatically suppose to let you eat them because they are trying to defend their offspring? Because that's basically what you say when you say you enjoy the fact that they are dead and eating their flesh because you don't like them.
Or that we've screwed up the entire food chain globally by turning everything into an artificial, simplified biome. Basically almost the entire planet has been geo-engineered. Without apex predatory you have to either reintroduce them or have man act as the apex predatory in those circumstances.
The places where wolves have been introduced have greatly increased the population of megafauna and not decreased it. By culling the weak the food chain works to it's ultimate utility and pre-man precision. Now, considering how difficult it is politically to reintroduce apex predators coupled with the issues of hybridizing with our own kept animals, like wolf-dogs, that do not have a natural fear of humans even further complicates man-animal interactions.
So what does that leave us with? Man acting as the apex predatory within a limited framework for hunting seasonally.
And as for "converting the world's pasture lands into farm fields." Well to begin, some of these sparse lands are not conducive to being farmed at all, and if they are farmed the productive level is lower than that of actually grazing animals. So again, the usage of that harsher land balances itself back through as indicating that it is easier nutritionally to have some dietary meats.
In sparser regions where there is less global trade and more agriculture, specific types of grains are much more difficult to come across for nutrition to maintain a full vegen diet. So therefore, it again becomes more sufficient to use agriculture.
Furthermore, do you really empathize with a lobster enough to buy it, fly it back to the sea, and release it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Why is eating meat any less moral than eating plants?
Well, some people think the fact that other animals can feel pain has something to do with eating meat being wrong, but in both instances, your eating the flesh of another living thing. Plants are just as important as animals, actually probably more important as plants can survive without us.
If you believe that unnecessarily hurting other living creatures for self-benefit is wrong, then you're always going to see yourself as an immoral person, and not eating meat isn't going to change that fact.
Pretty much this. The thing is if you go vegan you're still eating plants. Those are living things too. What's better about that?
Now I suppose we could get into a whole thing about consuming primary producers being more energy efficient than consuming other consumers... but in the end, like others have said, animals and men have eaten animals for all time. And if we were all vegan, not only would plants die, but a lot of animal populations could spiral out of control (not that one person going vegan would cause this, but you get it). We've evolved (or depending on your beliefs) were placed into an ecological niche which requires us to eat meat, and we have teeth designed for eating meat and digestive organs designed for digesting meat.
But I suppose if you were to continue to conclude that animals were more valuable than plants (for some strange reason - in fact plants are more key to our survival because of the O2 - CO2 relationship) and that eating them somehow hurts them and that still makes you feel bad, you probably won't get over it.
Well, some people think the fact that other animals can feel pain has something to do with eating meat being wrong, but in both instances, your eating the flesh of another living thing. Plants are just as important as animals, actually probably more important as plants can survive without us.
Certain Asian sects, some version of Buddhism or Hinduism does as a part of their practice only eat roots and do not kill the planets wholesale. They also wear face masks to prevent themselves from eating insects.
Speaking of which, if we cannot eat animals, why not eat insects? They're nutritious, delicious, and extremely easy to farm and are eco-friendly. Frankly, I feel if PETA would endorse eating insects over "higher lifeforms" they might have more success than suggesting useless ideas like using human breast milk in ice cream.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Certain Asian sects, some version of Buddhism or Hinduism does as a part of their practice only eat roots and do not kill the planets wholesale. They also wear face masks to prevent themselves from eating insects.
Alright then, you can do that while eating meat as well: Lizard tails.
Speaking of which, if we cannot eat animals, why not eat insects? They're nutritious, delicious, and extremely easy to farm and are eco-friendly. Frankly, I feel if PETA would endorse eating insects over "higher lifeforms" they might have more success than suggesting useless ideas like using human breast milk in ice cream.
But that'd be icky
/sarcasm off
Everyone knows PETA is... questionable at best. I'm not sure that'd be a viable route for them to go through though. Have you met the average young American adult? No way they'd eat bugs, even if they tried it they'd probably have a negative reaction just because they knew it was a bug (generally speaking, ofc).
Certain Asian sects, some version of Buddhism or Hinduism does as a part of their practice only eat roots and do not kill the planets wholesale. They also wear face masks to prevent themselves from eating insects.
Speaking of which, if we cannot eat animals, why not eat insects? They're nutritious, delicious, and extremely easy to farm and are eco-friendly. Frankly, I feel if PETA would endorse eating insects over "higher lifeforms" they might have more success than suggesting useless ideas like using human breast milk in ice cream.
Actually eating insects is an increasingly possible thing for the future. I think world leaders have discussed it sometime recently.
Although, the main reason Buddhists try not to kill living things is because they are reincarnations, they are also life, and they view all life as equal. With Hinduism its also sort of a karma thing. You wouldn't want someone stepping on you if you were a bug would you?
@Limecat: It doesn't JUST taste great. Nothing about the human body just happens. That comment shows blatant disregard for the delicate process of human evolution.
Not quite, but I guess I wasn't explicit enough. When a mother loves a child, she doesn't do it "because it is likely to improve chances of survival for her offspring, and thereby increase her genetic fitness". She loves her child because she loves her child. If evolution "chose" an emotion or instinct in order to get us to do something, like eat nutritious food or protect our children, so be it. But that's not why WE do them. Food really does taste good, and mothers really do love their children.
Ultimately "because we evolved that way" explains ALL of our behavior but is completely and utterly irrelevant in explaining if we should continue to behave that way.
Not quite, but I guess I wasn't explicit enough. When a mother loves a child, she doesn't do it "because it is likely to improve chances of survival for her offspring, and thereby increase her genetic fitness". She loves her child because she loves her child. If evolution "chose" an emotion or instinct in order to get us to do something, like eat nutritious food or protect our children, so be it. But that's not why WE do them. Food really does taste good, and mothers really do love their children.
Ultimately "because we evolved that way" explains ALL of our behavior but is completely and utterly irrelevant in explaining if we should continue to behave that way.
Evolution does explain taste and is still relevant, because if meat DIDN'T taste good, we wouldn't have much of an incentive to naturally eat it would we? We continue to eat meat because it tastes good, and it taste good because its healthy for us in some aspects and it's good for giving us energy and surviving. We could have evolved to prefer only plants, which would make eating meat seem even more immoral. A lot of morals are linked to adaption by evolution. It isn't really efficient to kill a family member since they care for you and help you usually, so that's why people would normally feel bad about and normally wouldn't think to do it. Since humans are evolved to be social, and be in groups, it's usually inefficient to lose a group member that could help you and the group survive.
I think you two are speaking of different things. It looks to me like limecat is saying that because something came about by evolution doesn't change it's value, because that thing is still there.
Meanwhile it looks to me like Backupzero is simply saying evolution matters because it has affected things.
So you're both talking about how the things evolution causes are relevant, although (in limecat's case) evolution in and of itself isn't.
If I'm interpreting you correctly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
I eat meat for 2 reasons I reckon and, I won't thump the Bible on either of them - 1) Because I can and, 2) because it tastes great!
I haven't heard that expression, but since you mention it, those reasons are perfectly fine by the Bible. In fact, there are rituals in which one has to eat meat.
And why does it taste great? Because for millions of years, it's been an efficient thing to eat meat. Just like sugar is good for our energy, so it tastes good to us so that we will eat it. Just like things are also bitter, because they may be poisonous.
Or it just does.
Seriously, all of that is pseudoscientific babble.
@Limecat: It doesn't JUST taste great. Nothing about the human body just happens. That comment shows blatant disregard for the delicate process of human evolution.
Unless you advocate intelligent design, isn't that a core factor in evolution? Stuff just happened without any set end point in mind?
Well, some people think the fact that other animals can feel pain has something to do with eating meat being wrong,
Why does an animal's ability to feel pain make any difference?
but in both instances, your eating the flesh of another living thing.
Good! That's called surviving!
Honestly, I feel like this can be considered insanity. There are people in the world starving to death, and we're sitting here discussing the morality of eating this food and not that food. As though morality were derived from our stomachs.
Evolution does explain taste and is still relevant, because if meat DIDN'T taste good, we wouldn't have much of an incentive to naturally eat it would we?
That's exactly the reverse of what you were arguing, and exactly what he was saying.
You were trying to say that we eat meat because we evolved in such a way that meat would taste good because otherwise we would not eat meat. Except that doesn't make a single ounce of sense.
So, I pretty much know all of standard vegetarianism-is-moral arguments. Can people provide me with some good meat-eating-is-moral arguments?
By the way, I'm not just looking for additional justifications. I haven't fully concluded meat eating is immoral. I'm just looking for good arguments from all sides before I make up my mind. The advantage is going towards vegetarianism right now, but is being cancelled out by my bias of loving meat.
Sig by XenoNinja of Heroes of the Plane Studios
A.) It's natural. Animals in the wild do it all the time.
B.) It's natural. PLANTS in the wild do it all the time.
See the Venus Flytrap and all the other carnivorous plants. Animals eat animals. Plants eat animals.
What could be argued as immoral is, for instance, cows being kept in a single pent their entire life, fattened up from day 1 until the day they're slaughtered. Or painful killing for the animals that end up on our dinner table.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Why?
No, you don't understand: there is ZERO reason to need moral justification for eating meat. The idea that you would is absurd.
WHY? Should we say wolves are morally incorrect for eating deer?
This is sad. Seriously. What, all of a sudden lost your free will or the ability to think for yourself?
There is no need for them.
Exactly. Not to mention that there are times when we have to.
This is like what's going on here. They have controlled deer hunting where I live, deer season starts up now. And you get idiots who say, "Oh no, we're horrible for hunting the deer". Which is stupid. The deer are running around unchecked because we killed all their natural predators. At about 24 or so individuals per square mile, the deer are eating at a rate that exceeds a forest's rate to regenerate. We've got places that are 3 or more times that number in deer population.
I just think it's so idiotic to object to hunting, or any slaughter of meat. It shows an obvious disconnect from nature and reality.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Animals also do what we would call "rape" and "murder" if they were human. Natural != justified.
Try this instead:
A) Most animals are not participants or potential participants in human society.
B) Most animals are not self-aware.
C) Most vegetarians are so obnoxious that it gives me pleasure to eat meat out of sheer spite. OM NOM NOM
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
How do you know most animals aren't self-aware and why should your judgement transcend the personal perspective of animals themselves? What if they don't think its obnoxious at all? For them, it's probably just normal, or what they need to do to survive. This is why it doesn't happen as much in civilized society, because most people don't need to murder or rape to survive or get what they want. However, some animals do. Are they just suppose to let themselves die because you don't like that they want to have their own territory (or whatever)? Or are they just automatically suppose to let you eat them because they are trying to defend their offspring? Because that's basically what you say when you say you enjoy the fact that they are dead and eating their flesh because you don't like them.
When money gets tight (as it often does) I eat vegan (almost) - Top Raman and I splurge at times with fine shreaded beef jerky ('snuff jerky') added with the water.
And why does it taste great? Because for millions of years, it's been an efficient thing to eat meat. Just like sugar is good for our energy, so it tastes good to us so that we will eat it. Just like things are also bitter, because they may be poisonous.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
My Blog About It
BS didn't say he doesn't like animals. He was merely pointing out the fallacy that is to say "what is natural is right". His answers are succinct but really all that are needed for a reasonable, rational human to feel justified in eating animals.
You're misunderstanding. It doesn't taste great because of some eon-spanning selective process. It tastes great because it tastes great.
So for some magical reason, it just happens to taste the way it does to us?
What is natural isn't right or wrong, it just is what it is. Although, let's just let him/her answer for him/herself.
My Blog About It
Or that we've screwed up the entire food chain globally by turning everything into an artificial, simplified biome. Basically almost the entire planet has been geo-engineered. Without apex predatory you have to either reintroduce them or have man act as the apex predatory in those circumstances.
The places where wolves have been introduced have greatly increased the population of megafauna and not decreased it. By culling the weak the food chain works to it's ultimate utility and pre-man precision. Now, considering how difficult it is politically to reintroduce apex predators coupled with the issues of hybridizing with our own kept animals, like wolf-dogs, that do not have a natural fear of humans even further complicates man-animal interactions.
So what does that leave us with? Man acting as the apex predatory within a limited framework for hunting seasonally.
And as for "converting the world's pasture lands into farm fields." Well to begin, some of these sparse lands are not conducive to being farmed at all, and if they are farmed the productive level is lower than that of actually grazing animals. So again, the usage of that harsher land balances itself back through as indicating that it is easier nutritionally to have some dietary meats.
In sparser regions where there is less global trade and more agriculture, specific types of grains are much more difficult to come across for nutrition to maintain a full vegen diet. So therefore, it again becomes more sufficient to use agriculture.
Furthermore, do you really empathize with a lobster enough to buy it, fly it back to the sea, and release it?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Well, some people think the fact that other animals can feel pain has something to do with eating meat being wrong, but in both instances, your eating the flesh of another living thing. Plants are just as important as animals, actually probably more important as plants can survive without us.
Pretty much this. The thing is if you go vegan you're still eating plants. Those are living things too. What's better about that?
Now I suppose we could get into a whole thing about consuming primary producers being more energy efficient than consuming other consumers... but in the end, like others have said, animals and men have eaten animals for all time. And if we were all vegan, not only would plants die, but a lot of animal populations could spiral out of control (not that one person going vegan would cause this, but you get it). We've evolved (or depending on your beliefs) were placed into an ecological niche which requires us to eat meat, and we have teeth designed for eating meat and digestive organs designed for digesting meat.
But I suppose if you were to continue to conclude that animals were more valuable than plants (for some strange reason - in fact plants are more key to our survival because of the O2 - CO2 relationship) and that eating them somehow hurts them and that still makes you feel bad, you probably won't get over it.
Edit: I forgot the final and most important pro-meat eating argument: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg
Certain Asian sects, some version of Buddhism or Hinduism does as a part of their practice only eat roots and do not kill the planets wholesale. They also wear face masks to prevent themselves from eating insects.
Speaking of which, if we cannot eat animals, why not eat insects? They're nutritious, delicious, and extremely easy to farm and are eco-friendly. Frankly, I feel if PETA would endorse eating insects over "higher lifeforms" they might have more success than suggesting useless ideas like using human breast milk in ice cream.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
But that'd be icky
/sarcasm off
Everyone knows PETA is... questionable at best. I'm not sure that'd be a viable route for them to go through though. Have you met the average young American adult? No way they'd eat bugs, even if they tried it they'd probably have a negative reaction just because they knew it was a bug (generally speaking, ofc).
Actually eating insects is an increasingly possible thing for the future. I think world leaders have discussed it sometime recently.
Although, the main reason Buddhists try not to kill living things is because they are reincarnations, they are also life, and they view all life as equal. With Hinduism its also sort of a karma thing. You wouldn't want someone stepping on you if you were a bug would you?
Not quite, but I guess I wasn't explicit enough. When a mother loves a child, she doesn't do it "because it is likely to improve chances of survival for her offspring, and thereby increase her genetic fitness". She loves her child because she loves her child. If evolution "chose" an emotion or instinct in order to get us to do something, like eat nutritious food or protect our children, so be it. But that's not why WE do them. Food really does taste good, and mothers really do love their children.
Ultimately "because we evolved that way" explains ALL of our behavior but is completely and utterly irrelevant in explaining if we should continue to behave that way.
Evolution does explain taste and is still relevant, because if meat DIDN'T taste good, we wouldn't have much of an incentive to naturally eat it would we? We continue to eat meat because it tastes good, and it taste good because its healthy for us in some aspects and it's good for giving us energy and surviving. We could have evolved to prefer only plants, which would make eating meat seem even more immoral. A lot of morals are linked to adaption by evolution. It isn't really efficient to kill a family member since they care for you and help you usually, so that's why people would normally feel bad about and normally wouldn't think to do it. Since humans are evolved to be social, and be in groups, it's usually inefficient to lose a group member that could help you and the group survive.
Meanwhile it looks to me like Backupzero is simply saying evolution matters because it has affected things.
So you're both talking about how the things evolution causes are relevant, although (in limecat's case) evolution in and of itself isn't.
If I'm interpreting you correctly.
I'm going to have to deem this a big "incorrect" unless you can back it up.
I haven't heard that expression, but since you mention it, those reasons are perfectly fine by the Bible. In fact, there are rituals in which one has to eat meat.
Or it just does.
Seriously, all of that is pseudoscientific babble.
Unless you advocate intelligent design, isn't that a core factor in evolution? Stuff just happened without any set end point in mind?
It isn't.
Why does an animal's ability to feel pain make any difference?
Good! That's called surviving!
Honestly, I feel like this can be considered insanity. There are people in the world starving to death, and we're sitting here discussing the morality of eating this food and not that food. As though morality were derived from our stomachs.
Except:
1. Insects are animals
2. People DO eat insects
That's exactly the reverse of what you were arguing, and exactly what he was saying.
You were trying to say that we eat meat because we evolved in such a way that meat would taste good because otherwise we would not eat meat. Except that doesn't make a single ounce of sense.