Current Events > I'm not a vegetarian or vegan but those seem like morally superior options

(+) Yeah! (+)

I consider my inability to stop eating meat a moral failing personally.


---

Pollo-pescetarianism is the more reasonable solution for most, tbqh.
---

Plants scream
---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77956876
---

Part of me thinks that in a couple decades, many will see it as a moral failing of our time.

I actually eat little meat, like a small amount once every couple of weeks, mainly due to laziness. I should be able to make the jump to no meat, but I guess I find that last 10% to be the hardest.
---

I agree
---

Does that mean it's ok to eat people too?

Asking for a friend
---

Honestly, any feelings of guilt behind eating meat is just the remnants of being raised in society shaped by religious ideals. Absent a God, we are just animals, and evolved over tens of thousands of years to be omnivores. Humans eating meat is no more immoral than any other animal that eats another animal.

You can make arguments about sport hunting, or animal cruelty, and there is some validity to that because we have the capacity to mitigate suffering. But there's no actual moral basis on simply being against eating meat unless you invoke God in some way to declare that we are special or animals have souls.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Humans eating meat is no more immoral than any other animal that eats another animal.

What if I told you that animals don't have a choice, but you literally do?
---

s0nicfan posted...

Honestly, any feelings of guilt behind eating meat is just the remnants of being raised in society shaped by religious ideals. Absent a God, we are just animals, and evolved over tens of thousands of years to be omnivores. Humans eating meat is no more immoral than any other animal that eats another animal.

You can make arguments about sport hunting, or animal cruelty, and there is some validity to that because we have the capacity to mitigate suffering. But there's no actual moral basis on simply being against eating meat unless you invoke God in some way to declare that we are special or animals have souls.

meat is also a pretty significant contributor to climate change
---

s0nicfan posted...

Honestly, any feelings of guilt behind eating meat is just the remnants of being raised in society shaped by religious ideals. Absent a God, we are just animals, and evolved over tens of thousands of years to be omnivores. Humans eating meat is no more immoral than any other animal that eats another animal.

You can make arguments about sport hunting, or animal cruelty, and there is some validity to that because we have the capacity to mitigate suffering. But there's no actual moral basis on simply being against eating meat unless you invoke God in some way to declare that we are special or animals have souls.

Hmm, I get that you're making a distinction between how we obtain the meat and the cruelty involved in that, and just the act of eating animals. I'd still disagree that there needs to be a religious reasoning to think the latter is morally wrong.

I'd have to think about it some more
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Animals dont farm each other. I dont believe in God and I absolutely believe that its morally right to not force animals to suffer.

So would it be moral to eat meat if humans only ate meat that was hunted? Your complaint seems to be that we are efficient at it, not that the act itself is wrong.

Pepys Monster posted...

What if I told you that animals don't have a choice, but you literally do?

Animals absolutely have a choice. Scavengers, for example, and carrion creatures can choose between hunting and eating carcasses. We are not the only omnivore on the planet.

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?
---

I dont
Its what we evolved to eat and it tastes fucking good
---

averagejoel posted...

meat is also a pretty significant contributor to climate change

So are cars. Is driving immoral?
---

s0nicfan posted...

Honestly, any feelings of guilt behind eating meat is just the remnants of being raised in society shaped by religious ideals. Absent a God, we are just animals, and evolved over tens of thousands of years to be omnivores. Humans eating meat is no more immoral than any other animal that eats another animal.

You can make arguments about sport hunting, or animal cruelty, and there is some validity to that because we have the capacity to mitigate suffering. But there's no actual moral basis on simply being against eating meat unless you invoke God in some way to declare that we are special or animals have souls.

Seems kind of like an irrelevant distinction in our current system, though. The vast majority of the meat produced and consumed is done in horrendous conditions. Even things that are represented to the public as free range/grassfed/etc are typically misleading. If you live on a commune and eat your llama after it dies of old age, that's fine, but it's a corner case that distracts from the issue I'm talking about. I don't think it's possible to be a conscientious consumer of meat for most people -- and I don't think that most people who eat meat even try in the first place

---

If animals didn't want to be eaten they shouldn't be made of meat... or be so damn tasty.
---

Thats exactly what vegans want you to think, TC.

You've fallen into their trap. Hook line and sinker. The vegetarians are fishing you up and then pooping in your mouth.

---

s0nicfan posted...

Animals absolutely have a choice. Scavengers, for example, and carrion creatures can choose between hunting and eating carcasses. We are not the only omnivore on the planet.

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

Wow, you don't get it. Animals are in a struggle for survival. You can walk into a restaurant or go to the grocery store anytime and choose what you want to eat. By choosing to eat meat, you are choosing cruelty, despite having other options. An animal does what it has to to live to the next day.
---

anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about that argument since it seems to imply that all morals come from religion and without it we have no reason to do anything differently than other animals. but even though you can argue that, as a communal species, we evolved ideas of reciprocity that sort of prevent our most heinous acts from being "natural," I think that reasoning plenty of room for arguments that you would probably consider absurd, i.e., we evolved to procreate so why not just kill our rivals and rape their women like (some) other animals do

---

Generally it's undesirable for slaughter houses to stress the animals before they kill them because that raises their cortisol levels and makes the meat tougher. Tougher meat grades lower and can't be sold for as much.

s0nicfan posted...

averagejoel posted...

meat is also a pretty significant contributor to climate change

So are cars. Is driving immoral?

there is absolutely a basis for the idea that it is

edit: and not only because of climate change either
---

Pepys Monster posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Animals absolutely have a choice. Scavengers, for example, and carrion creatures can choose between hunting and eating carcasses. We are not the only omnivore on the planet.

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

Wow, you don't get it. Animals are in a struggle for survival. You can walk into a restaurant or go to the grocery store anytime and choose what you want to eat. By choosing to eat meat, you are choosing cruelty, despite having other options. An animal does what it has to to live to the next day.

So is it moral for people in third world countries to eat meat? Is "the struggle" your dividing line between moral and not moral?
---

s0nicfan posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Animals absolutely have a choice. Scavengers, for example, and carrion creatures can choose between hunting and eating carcasses. We are not the only omnivore on the planet.

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

Wow, you don't get it. Animals are in a struggle for survival. You can walk into a restaurant or go to the grocery store anytime and choose what you want to eat. By choosing to eat meat, you are choosing cruelty, despite having other options. An animal does what it has to to live to the next day.

So is it moral for people in third world countries to eat meat? Is "the struggle" your dividing line between moral and not moral?

If someone has to choose between dying and eating meat, I wouldn't blame them for eating meat. But don't equate yourself with someone starving in a third world country just because you want to feel morally okay about getting a box of McNuggets.
---

Balrog0 posted...

anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about that argument since it seems to imply that all morals come from religion and without it we have no reason to do anything differently than other animals. but even though you can argue that, as a communal species, we evolved ideas of reciprocity that sort of prevent our most heinous acts from being "natural," I think that reasoning plenty of room for arguments that you would probably consider absurd, i.e., we evolved to procreate so why not just kill our rivals and rape their women like (some) other animals do

I'm not saying ALL morals are based on religion, just this one. That, and that I don't think most people have ever really evaluated the basis of why they consider an act moral or not.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

If you really believed it was a moral failing, would you do it? What else do you do on a regular basis that you consider morally bad?

Are you trying to say that the only preferences that exist are demonstrated preferences?
But here's a few:

-Lie for my own gain
-Choose to spend money on vices instead of charity
-Slack off at work
-Ignore my parents when I know they really want to see me

not all of these are equally bad but I consider them all moral failings

---

averagejoel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

averagejoel posted...

meat is also a pretty significant contributor to climate change

So are cars. Is driving immoral?

there is absolutely a basis for the idea that it is

edit: and not only because of climate change either

Do you drive?
---

Driving is not only amoral, but an unavoidable fact of life for many people

s0nicfan posted...

averagejoel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

averagejoel posted...

meat is also a pretty significant contributor to climate change

So are cars. Is driving immoral?

there is absolutely a basis for the idea that it is

edit: and not only because of climate change either

Do you drive?

no. I walk, bike, or take transit.

but also whether or not I personally drive is irrelevant in the context of the conversation taking place.
---

Pepys Monster posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Animals absolutely have a choice. Scavengers, for example, and carrion creatures can choose between hunting and eating carcasses. We are not the only omnivore on the planet.

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

Wow, you don't get it. Animals are in a struggle for survival. You can walk into a restaurant or go to the grocery store anytime and choose what you want to eat. By choosing to eat meat, you are choosing cruelty, despite having other options. An animal does what it has to to live to the next day.

So is it moral for people in third world countries to eat meat? Is "the struggle" your dividing line between moral and not moral?

If someone has to choose between dying and eating meat, I wouldn't blame them for eating meat. But don't equate yourself with someone starving in a third world country just because you want to feel morally okay about getting a box of McNuggets.

So your morality here is that it's okay if you're struggling or need to for survival. So even though you consider it cruelty, you're saying we can do things morally cruel if it means survival. Do you disagree?
---

-Cipher- posted...

Driving is not only amoral, but an unavoidable fact of life for many people

are those two thoughts related? you don't think it's possible that something could be an unavoidable fact of life for many people and also immoral (or moral)?

---

Sonic's (attempt at) logic in this topic is like watching a freight train collision. The excitement of whats going to happen next makes it impossible to look away from the absolute disaster.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

I missed this earlier but are you honestly trying to argue that its equally moral to give money to strangers as it is to not if you can afford to do it?

I absolutely think that, between two people with the same financial capacity and all other things completely equal, the person who gives more of his money to strangers is morally better than the person who doesnt.

You could not absolutely plays into this. Its not a choice for survival, its an option taken for pleasure at the expense of the animals who suffer and die.

I'm saying the availability of a choice does not itself imply one choice is moral and the other is immoral.
---

s0nicfan posted...

So your morality here is that it's okay if you're struggling or need to for survival. So even though you consider it cruelty, you're saying we can do things morally cruel if it means survival. Do you disagree?

"The more urgent our needs, the less discriminating we are about them. Finer points become pointless, because, in the democracy of desire, pies equal potatoes equal stewed meats equal apples equal snails (we'll roast rats, eat our dogs and cats, crunch the bones of our canaries, devour one another the way Saturn swallowed his children)..."

---

Meat comas are good for the soul

---

why do we have to maximize morality?
---

s0nicfan posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

I missed this earlier but are you honestly trying to argue that its equally moral to give money to strangers as it is to not if you can afford to do it?

I absolutely think that, between two people with the same financial capacity and all other things completely equal, the person who gives more of his money to strangers is morally better than the person who doesnt.

You could not absolutely plays into this. Its not a choice for survival, its an option taken for pleasure at the expense of the animals who suffer and die.

I'm saying the availability of a choice does not itself imply one choice is moral and the other is immoral.

whether or not it's intentional, you are misconstruing the argument. the idea is that it isn't necessarily immoral to commit an immoral act if someone is forced into the act.
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

So your morality here is that it's okay if you're struggling or need to for survival. So even though you consider it cruelty, you're saying we can do things morally cruel if it means survival. Do you disagree?

"The more urgent our needs, the less discriminating we are about them. Finer points become pointless, because, in the democracy of desire, pies equal potatoes equal stewed meats equal apples equal snails (we'll roast rats, eat our dogs and cats, crunch the bones of our canaries, devour one another the way Saturn swallowed his children)..."

"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire.

There's a difference between moral relativism and saying that people do immoral things to survive, and I was trying to get at that. If it's the former, we run into the issue of determining which morality is "right" absent a higher power, and if its the latter (which I doubt) we put ourselves in a situation where we have no choice but to say that struggling people are morally bad people because they do things that violate our moral compass. It's just an interesting discussion to probe.
---

averagejoel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

I missed this earlier but are you honestly trying to argue that its equally moral to give money to strangers as it is to not if you can afford to do it?

I absolutely think that, between two people with the same financial capacity and all other things completely equal, the person who gives more of his money to strangers is morally better than the person who doesnt.

You could not absolutely plays into this. Its not a choice for survival, its an option taken for pleasure at the expense of the animals who suffer and die.

I'm saying the availability of a choice does not itself imply one choice is moral and the other is immoral.

whether or not it's intentional, you are misconstruing the argument. the idea is that it isn't necessarily immoral to commit an immoral act if someone is forced into the act.

I'm not misconstruing the argument. I'm asking the person to elaborate. "You could choose not to" is not itself an argument for or against something being moral. If the argument is one of suffering, then they should again be okay with eating meat if the death is painless or if the creature was hunted, and then we're back to the issue of HOW the meat is gathered and not whether eating meat is immoral.

Say we invent a way that 100% kills an animal instantly without pain. Does this make it okay to eat meat? Or does the issue then become "but they were raised to be killed", but if that's the argument then you'll have to explain to me what value the life of a "wild" chicken has that is being stolen from it if it could be given a painless life and a swift death.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Thats exactly what vegans want you to think, TC.

You've fallen into their trap. Hook line and sinker. The vegetarians are fishing you up and then pooping in your mouth.

Where do we sign up again?

Nobody told me that was part of the deal.
---

s0nicfan posted...

averagejoel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

I missed this earlier but are you honestly trying to argue that its equally moral to give money to strangers as it is to not if you can afford to do it?

I absolutely think that, between two people with the same financial capacity and all other things completely equal, the person who gives more of his money to strangers is morally better than the person who doesnt.

You could not absolutely plays into this. Its not a choice for survival, its an option taken for pleasure at the expense of the animals who suffer and die.

I'm saying the availability of a choice does not itself imply one choice is moral and the other is immoral.

whether or not it's intentional, you are misconstruing the argument. the idea is that it isn't necessarily immoral to commit an immoral act if someone is forced into the act.

I'm not misconstruing the argument. I'm asking the person to elaborate. "You could choose not to" is not itself an argument for or against something being moral. If the argument is one of suffering, then they should again be okay with eating meat if the death is painless or if the creature was hunted, and then we're back to the issue of HOW the meat is gathered and not whether eating meat is immoral.

Say we invent a way that 100% kills an animal instantly without pain. Does this make it okay to eat meat? Or does the issue then become "but they were raised to be killed", but if that's the argument then you'll have to explain to me what value the life of a "wild" chicken has that is being stolen from it if it could be given a painless life and a swift death.

you are aware that that's not the only argument for meat eating being immoral, right?
---

averagejoel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

averagejoel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

I missed this earlier but are you honestly trying to argue that its equally moral to give money to strangers as it is to not if you can afford to do it?

I absolutely think that, between two people with the same financial capacity and all other things completely equal, the person who gives more of his money to strangers is morally better than the person who doesnt.

You could not absolutely plays into this. Its not a choice for survival, its an option taken for pleasure at the expense of the animals who suffer and die.

I'm saying the availability of a choice does not itself imply one choice is moral and the other is immoral.

whether or not it's intentional, you are misconstruing the argument. the idea is that it isn't necessarily immoral to commit an immoral act if someone is forced into the act.

I'm not misconstruing the argument. I'm asking the person to elaborate. "You could choose not to" is not itself an argument for or against something being moral. If the argument is one of suffering, then they should again be okay with eating meat if the death is painless or if the creature was hunted, and then we're back to the issue of HOW the meat is gathered and not whether eating meat is immoral.

Say we invent a way that 100% kills an animal instantly without pain. Does this make it okay to eat meat? Or does the issue then become "but they were raised to be killed", but if that's the argument then you'll have to explain to me what value the life of a "wild" chicken has that is being stolen from it if it could be given a painless life and a swift death.

you are aware that that's not the only argument for meat eating being immoral, right?

well no one is going to reply to my other post so what are the reasons?
---

averagejoel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

averagejoel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

I missed this earlier but are you honestly trying to argue that its equally moral to give money to strangers as it is to not if you can afford to do it?

I absolutely think that, between two people with the same financial capacity and all other things completely equal, the person who gives more of his money to strangers is morally better than the person who doesnt.

You could not absolutely plays into this. Its not a choice for survival, its an option taken for pleasure at the expense of the animals who suffer and die.

I'm saying the availability of a choice does not itself imply one choice is moral and the other is immoral.

whether or not it's intentional, you are misconstruing the argument. the idea is that it isn't necessarily immoral to commit an immoral act if someone is forced into the act.

I'm not misconstruing the argument. I'm asking the person to elaborate. "You could choose not to" is not itself an argument for or against something being moral. If the argument is one of suffering, then they should again be okay with eating meat if the death is painless or if the creature was hunted, and then we're back to the issue of HOW the meat is gathered and not whether eating meat is immoral.

Say we invent a way that 100% kills an animal instantly without pain. Does this make it okay to eat meat? Or does the issue then become "but they were raised to be killed", but if that's the argument then you'll have to explain to me what value the life of a "wild" chicken has that is being stolen from it if it could be given a painless life and a swift death.

you are aware that that's not the only argument for meat eating being immoral, right?

Then make the others. So far all I've seen in this topic is "its cruel because it induces suffering" and "it contributes to global warming".
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

why do we have to maximize morality?

Who said that we do? I'm sure not acting like we do as @Godnorgosh pointed out, am I?

---

s0nicfan posted...

So far all I've seen in this topic is "its cruel because it induces suffering" and "it contributes to global warming".

Yeah those are my two primary arguments. I don't think you've tried to refute either from what I can tell. Well, I guess you seemed to accept the former and deny the latter by comparing it to cars.

---

Balrog0 posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

why do we have to maximize morality?

Who said that we do? I'm sure not acting like we do as @Godnorgosh pointed out, am I?

hmm, ok.

i think people are wont to confuse excellence with morality. abstaining from meat is certainly a mark of excellence and superior ability to divorce one's person from social norms and form their own values, or whatever, but you're not morally superior for not eating meat- you're just more excellent.

edit: jfc i don't think 'moral superiority' is even a tenable concept
---