Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnox
Not quite. I can see no logical issue with it being spectrumized based on a level of sentience (or, more importantly, ability to feel pain). For example, bacteria has no concept of pain, so you can use cleaning products just fine. A vegan might argue that torturing an ant is probably better than a dog.
|
The Taste Argument: "I love the way meat tastes. I wont deprive myself of this. Therefore, I should be able to eat meat."
Objection: "Think about what it would sound like to argue as follows: "I like the way it sounds, when someone asks you why you're hitting infants on the head with a hammer. There's nothing quite like that sound, and I really like it (and maybe add tradition in here), so I don't see why I should give it up
You can go on forever: I like the way i can play a song on the piano... there's nothing quite like that sound, and i really like it. so i don't see why i should give it up. Should we ban piano's?
Maybe where it all went wrong is where someone wants to make us believe that we actually need valid arguments to eat meat.
Not everyone thinks that the level of sentience of animals makes it rejectable to cage, kill and eat it. Adjudge same values to animals as a universal objective moral and make an analogy based on it makes the conclussion that comes out of it a corrupted one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnox
Sure. But moral subjectivism doesn't mean that there aren't good arguments for why you should follow one set of practices in life. Also, I'd probably find some VERY inconsistent logic with anyone's framework of morality if they consume animal products. Most people don't think about it, because it's an inconvenient fact about the nature of living: things feel pain, but they're too lazy to change.
|
Yes but some people just don't have the same empatic feelings for some animals as they have for humans. And some people seem to have more empatic feelings for animals then for humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnox
The legal system is far from being a good guidence of morality. I'd suggest you avoid that line of argument - it's terrible, and you won't get anywhere with it.
|
It was not an argument... I'm not saying the legality of eating meat is an argument for eating meat. It was about not feeling guilty when not FEELING guilty. Some people are trying to make carnivores feel quilty, with for example, using corrupted arguments. They call it often ignorance but don't seem to understand that most people just don't have the same empathic feelings for animals as they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnox
Firstly: are you in a tribe that desperately needs food? Vegans would probably have less of an issue with this type of consumption of animal products. Mainly because hunting requires you killing an animal that has been out in the wild and hasn't been kept in a cage, force fed food or injected with various hormones to increase its growth. These are incredibly niche cultures and account for an insignificant amount of the current consumption of meat. Most people go to a store, see the meat packaged, pick it up, hand over cash and go home - I don't remember the last time I saw a Zulu at Walmart.
|
Regarding to my tribe story... it was not an argument neither... it was not like: Zulu's eat meat so that is the argument for "it is ok to eat meat". What i was trying to say: mankind has become pussy and are now putting clothes on little cute dogs, carrying them around in gucci bags and treating them as humans. We can't go running after animals any longer. There are too many of us so we had to upscale things so we grow animals in cages... yes we do... Some people cry about it and want to humanize everything, others think it's ok.