KimyReizeger

Ok, then we can drop that part of the debate. Sorry, bad typing on my part. I meant I'm not bothered as to the circumstances (or reasons) by which we came to be a meat-eating society. Of course I'm interested in the reasons why we do it, that's why I'm participating. Because, if I genuinely wasn't concerned about the other side's argument, I wouldn't be taking part... Being food on a plate is an example of unnecessary pain because meat-eating isn't a necessity in our society. If you don't think a cow should suffer unnecessary pain why are you eating them? What you mean is that you're not sufficiently bothered by the pain inflicted on a cow to stop eating meat. Nothing I'm writing really reflects my own beliefs or personal practices. I had a steak tonight for example. I've just stated, albeitly with little eloquence, some of the arguments against eating-meat, for which I genuinely think there has been no satisfactory answer.

Yes, that's fair enough. I sometimes lose clarity along the way and I'm a rookie at this philosophical stuff anyway. Both definitions are flawed as justifications for present actions. You've sort of answered your own enquiry. A Hindu making the 'unnatural' argument against meat-eating would be wrong because that is to suggest that everything 'unnatural' (computers, CAT scans and radar for instance) is inherently bad, which it isn't. A meat-eater making the argument for meat-eating on the 'natural' basis would be wrong because that is to suggest that everything natural is inherently good, which it isn't (death, disease, parasites etc). I know there's a nice ring to arguing on the basis of 'naturality'; people are always pitting the thrusting, polluted, digital new world against the natural idyll we have come from. However, the actions of animals and ancient ancestors should really not be determining us too much. This point is really important to this debate and would suggest taking five minutes to understand it properly. I'm sorry if I haven't explained it so well: You mention that some cultures have argued that killing heretics is natural, presumably on the basis that their ancestors did it. This is perhaps true. We did it here. However, they'd all be wrong, and simply be continuing the immorality of their fathers. So finally, do you think I'd be able to justify eating my new partner's children? Lions do, therefore it's natural. I'd agree. It's also been a poor defence, where the main attacks have not been answered at all. I am personally a meat-eater so think I have a reasonable of objectivity in these matters.

I guess through trial, error and discussions like these. I don't so much is levelled towards christianity throughout this thread. That's not my impression and its interesting you're the only one to pick it up. I'm not bothered as the reasons to why we eat meat. I don't think they impact much on the current debate because, as we've seen, what our forebears did is not necessarily a model of what we should hope to become. Secular philisophical thought has existed longer than religion. I can't tell you why we have such desires. That's asking a bit much really! Do you agree that an inability to understand complex philosophical issues should not impact on a being's right to be free of unnecessary pain and suffering? I think the bit I've highlighted here really sums up most of the pro-carnivore argument on here. Human progression in all spheres is really the result of such 'overthinking'. Have you considered that you're taking very a conventional, conservative standpoint? Does that mean anything to you or explain at all your reaction to this debate, do you think?

Well, what do people really mean when they say something is 'natural'? 1. That our ancestors did it. 2. That it's normal, usual, commonplace. You don't eat shit and then justify it by saying 'it's natural' do you? You don't burn heretics then justify it by saying 'it's natural' do you? Basically, to say something is 'natural' as a justification for its inherent good properties doesn't cut it because there are plenty of undesireable things existing in nature.

Because some may be valuable whilst others aren't? This is one of the most confused sentences I've ever some across. I understand that: those who think morality is a good thing, also think humans are superior to animals and should therefore eat them? Morality doesn't originate in religion. Religion is just a medium which details loosely various ideals and desires we have relating to moral behaviour. We didn't necessarily require religion specifically to give us these. Whenwill people stop comparing us with stone age man and saying, 'oh, it's natural to eat meat!'. This is a terrible argument which has been thoroughly 'downed' throughout this discussion. Can you genuinely not see this? In no realm of life would you justify yourself by saying, 'oh but lions do it'. So why now?

This sums up an argument against your thought which has been running throughout the thread without answer. Speciesism: Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was coined by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973 to denote a prejudice based on physical differences.[1] "I use the word 'speciesism'", he explained two years later, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species [...]. Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."[2] Philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer have both argued against the human tendency to exhibit speciesism. Regan believes that all animals have inherent rights and that we cannot assign them a lesser value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants and the mentally impaired solely on the grounds of their being members of the supposedly superior human species.[5] Speciesism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By that logic should the same happen with mentally-disabled people? Why should the mental attributes of a cow impact on its ability to suffer? This point has been dragged on somewhat because I don't think anyone can answer it.

Can you tell me why a being acting out of 'instinct' holds less rights to be free of pain than one which acts out of 'desire'?

So can you tell me why a cow's desire to want pain to cease is not relevant?

Dunno, probably. I'll have to see. Thinking I'll go to the lemon tree on monday, should be a banger I reckon.

HeinzHines Pg32

'I desire pain to stop and in doing so I satisfy my instinct.' I mean, is there any other way to write that?

Cows want pain to end. Whether or not this is instinct or desire is irrelevant. You're just toying with words.

It sounded as though you had invoked the 'indifference' found in hunter to prey in nature as a justification for humans breeding and slaughtering cows. I'm not a vegan and have never lived without meat. I'd have to think hard before becoming vegetarian. I think what you said earlier is really accurate, that bit about not feeling sufficiently bothered by the prospect of pain at slaughter to stop eating meat. I'm the same: the pain felt by animals at slaughter does not currently weigh sufficiently upon my conscience for me to quit meat. That said, I'm not going to be fool enough to suggest pain doesn't exist in animals, or that it's not relevant because they're less intelligent than us, that cows don't feel pain and don't want it to end, or that the fact that meat tastes nice is a moral argument for eating it!

'Desire' from Homepage | Dictionary.com The desire for food when you're hungry, sleep when you're tired, respite from pain when you're in pain. .To be honest I think this argument is totally diffused because I've never once heard an expression such as this, nor have I heard these two concepts pitted against one another. . The definition of desire above is pretty conclusive in presenting how a cow may want something, but if you guys want to continue suggesting that a cow's need to halt pain is not valid enough to not subject a cow to pain in the first place then go ahead.

Again, bears scant relation to the morality of meat-eating. Life's easier when you keep slaves, murder your opponents etc etc etc Eating meat is not currently a necessity.

...and dressing your arguments in the garb of a particularly dim, primary school age child does little to change much either!

GodzillaBlues. This: is not an argument which bears any relation to the morality of eating meat.

Instinct / desire? Does it matter? A cow wants pain to end regardless of its inability to consider in depth why it wants it to end. Much in the same way a mentally-impaired person of the same intelligence of a cow wishes it to end. Quite why that doesn't constitute 'logical thought' I'm unsure: seems pretty logical to move away from fires when they burn you. When my dog barks at cows most of them run off, presumably sensing danger and the prospect of pain, yet there will always be some who stay, perhaps reflective of their experience, age, and, for want of a better word, personality.

Go back. Read the thread. Then please post objections which haven't been covered extensively already.

Humans recognise the brutal nature of the animal kingdom, the indifferent attitude of the lion to the zebra, and attempt to rise above it. In what other realm of life would you compare and justify yourself by reference to an animal? Animals have relatively low mental activity, lick their balls and eat their own shit: Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A lot of people seem to be stumbling on the idea that we consider ourselves as both superior to animals, yet also as equals (such as when they've been referred to as 'people'). Well, you probably consider yourself as superior mentally to a mentally disabled person. However, certainly mentally-disabled people shouldn't have their right to not be interfered with, abused and subjected to suffering reduced on the basis of their disability. That a cow or disabled person is not aware of these complex philosophical arguments does not give you the right to subject said being to pain.

A cow desires to not feel pain. Is this not a valid desire? The theory of natural selection goes a long way in explaining how a species' existence is generally determined on this earth. The notion of vegetarians denying a species its natural 'right to existence' is silly. Do you think slaughtered cows view themselves as necessary sacrifices to the continuity of the cow species? And that by breeding them as food we're doing them a favour by respecting their right - as a species - to existence which would otherwise be broken if we let nature take its course? Bloody nature, always trampling on everyone's right to survive as a species! Individual cows aren't concerned with the legacy of their species, rather, with eating, sleeping drinking, and not feeling pain.

Thanks Colin. It's pretty scrappy and I'll be popping better stuff up when it's written Not really done much electronic-wise for a while and yes, have already blended styles countless times! ps, you going to average white band on monday?

Potential economic considerations in the future do little to halt the debate we can have about the subject right now. I accept vastly fluctuating economic tides (and I mean vastly, not simply us getting a bit poorer) could turn this debate on its head. Quite why you should be left in peace I don't understand. We are a society who live together, move together, represent and influence one another. Besides, asking to be 'left alone' when you yourself 'don't leave animals alone', to put it simply, is a bit rich really. Whenever your actions are impinging upon another's you deserve to justify them and be held to account for them; have a quick look at JS Mill's theory of liberty and the harm principle: Which is why Alkaline's weird smoking comment is for all realistic purposes irrelevant because smokers these days only damage themselves.

Who said anything about going around enforcing vegan diets on the world's poor? We in Scotland currently live in wealth, something which affords the opportunity us to explore moral grey areas such as this. Le Stu, should we really be anticipating some kind of total societal breakdown in the future where the human species regresses several thousand years, leaving us cold on the ground, fighting one another for scraps of meat? I don't think so. We should be living and acting on the basis of what is happening right now and taking advantage of our relative wealth and freedom to explore new things.