Do you feel any guilt from eating meat?

loveisdivine · 29-07-2012 12:14pm

For me, the basic idea of eating meat is something I agree with.

My problem lies in the way it's done these days. Factory farming is horrific, it's based purely on profits and how quick/cheap animals can he produced.

In an ideal world, all meat animals would be raised on small, local farms run by local people. You would be responsible for rearing and slaughtering your own livestock, with no travel between the two for the animal. It would be done for the sole purpose of creating healthy and great tasting meat. Sold at whatever price it has to be.

For me, cheap meat is the real issue. The notion most people have is that a meal isn't complete without meat. So they buy the cheapest they can so they can eat it everyday.
If I can't afford free range/organic one week, then I'll go without simple as.
Most people seem incapable of doing this.

Finnbar01 · 29-07-2012 2:10pm

loveisdivine wrote: »

For me, the basic idea of eating meat is something I agree with.

My problem lies in the way it's done these days. Factory farming is horrific, it's based purely on profits and how quick/cheap animals can he produced.

In an ideal world, all meat animals would be raised on small, local farms run by local people. You would be responsible for rearing and slaughtering your own livestock, with no travel between the two for the animal. It would be done for the sole purpose of creating healthy and great tasting meat. Sold at whatever price it has to be.

For me, cheap meat is the real issue. The notion most people have is that a meal isn't complete without meat. So they buy the cheapest they can so they can eat it everyday.If I can't afford free range/organic one week, then I'll go without simple as Most people seem incapable of doing this.

That method of farming would see prices rises so dramatically that the poor and even the middle classes would not be able to afford meat. Also having an abundance of small local farms doted throughout our countryside would be ecologically and enviromentally damaging.

loveisdivine · 29-07-2012 2:19pm

Maybe prices should be high. That way we would only rear and kill what we really need.
I don't think there should be farms everywhere either. My point is if we reduce consumption we won't need farms everywhere.

The Corinthian · 29-07-2012 2:44pm

loveisdivine wrote: »

Maybe prices should be high. That way we would only rear and kill what we really need.

I think most if not all would agree that, as a society, the West eats way too much meat. This is a relitively recent affair; humans had a limited amount of meat per week in the past and unless you actually farmed meat, you probably only got to eat it once or maybe twice a week.

To put the historical consumption of meat into context, consider the famous phrase by Henry IV of France:

"If God keeps me, I will make sure that there is no working man in my kingdom who does not have the means to have a chicken in the pot every Sunday!"

That's a chicken. Once a week. To feed likely a family of 5+. And chickens were smaller back then. No wonder there's now so many obese people out there.

And unfortunately, the law of supply and demand is the best way of dealing with this. We might not like the idea of more expensive meat, but if we really do want to encourage people to eat less of it, increasing the price works wonders to dampen demand.

I don't think there should be farms everywhere either. My point is if we reduce consumption we won't need farms everywhere.

Not that simple. If you want to improve conditions for animals you're going to have to abandon factory farming of meat and realistically this will mean more farms, not less, as they are less efficient at producing it. If you increase factory farming, then demand can be met by a smaller number of farms.

Finnbar01 · 29-07-2012 3:43pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think most if not all would agree that, as a society, the West eats way too much meat. This is a relitively recent affair; humans had a limited amount of meat per week in the past and unless you actually farmed meat, you probably only got to eat it once or maybe twice a week.

You could say that about everything we consume or use today. Medicine, fuel, clothing etc.

To put the historical consumption of meat into context, consider the famous phrase by Henry IV of France:

"If God keeps me, I will make sure that there is no working man in my kingdom who does not have the means to have a chicken in the pot every Sunday!"

Even the poorest in our society today would have a much better quality of life than Henry IV or even the sun king of France, Louis XIV.

That's a chicken. Once a week. To feed likely a family of 5+. And chickens were smaller back then. No wonder there's now so many obese people out there.

I do not see how restricting people's choice and eating habits is a good thing. People will always find ways around the restrictions.

And unfortunately, the law of supply and demand is the best way of dealing with this. We might not like the idea of more expensive meat, but if we really do want to encourage people to eat less of it, increasing the price works wonders to dampen demand.

No it will not work wonders. The poor, the working and middle classes will not be able to afford meat or more precisely, they will have to spend a greater deal of their disposal income on meat. Those who control the meat supply will become incredibly rich at the expense of those who don't.

Mark Hamill · 29-07-2012 3:43pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think there's plenty of neurosis in every direction there, but certainly her rejection of meat for purely psychological reasons (guilt) is a pretty blatent one.

So what if it is? People do a lot of things out of guilt, doesn't mean they shouldn't do them. Sometimes the guilt has a point.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Humans are above other animals; it's called the food chain and we're essentially at the apex.

The food chain isn't set in stone, its just some human construct for us to feel better about eating other animals. What happens to the food chain when a human is eaten by an animal its supposedly above?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course we can fall foul of it too (and unless cremated, eventually do), but that's life.

So we are above animals in the food chain, until we aren't?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course we can pretend there is no food chain and we're all equal, in which case I suggest you take a swim in some shark infested waters and see if the sharks share your view - they should be able to seeing as we're not above them in any way.

I said we aren't above animals in some magic, having-domain-over-them way, I never said we weren't different from them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I've already pointed out how it is quite unnatural to engage in cannibalism and how it is rare in mammals, but you appear to be ignoring that. You seem obsessed with this straw man.

I wasn't talking about cannibalism here but what difference would it make if it was rare?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said it was; but 'blind' or not, evolution is why we are how we are. But shall we go against other natural inclinations? Embrace asexuality perhaps? Let's stop sleeping maybe? Or do you have to feel guilty about something first before you try something like that?

Or you could just recognise that a particular biological inclination is the product of undirected evolution and so is not necessarily the best thing to do. Men, as a rule, don't jump the nearest fertile female when they get spontaneously sexually aroused, so its hardly like we don't reject or control other biological urges. Asexuality, as a group choice, would be pretty detrimental to the population, but abandoning sleep? Well, if we could do so healthily, we could certainly increase our productivity, so why not?

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you believe in absolute moral truths? Did a burning bush tell you that?

I believe in consistent moral declarations. If humanity says something is immoral, then its immoral no matter how many use cognitive dissonance to enjoy being immoral.

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. So farming them for meat is immoral, but facilitating their genocide is not.

Letting them die out, if thats what would happen, is not immoral. They only exist because of us, so its not like we are allowing some naturally occurring breeds to die out. If its not immoral to let nature take its course for wild breeds, then its not immoral to let domesticated breeds re-enter the wild.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's idiotic is the reason.

It's like someone who refuses to go out into sunlight for purely ideological (or more likely psychological) reasons and thus has to take vitamin D supplements. Certainly they can do that instead of getting their vitamin D the way they were designed to, but they'd also frankly be idiots.

I fail to see how its idiotic. They don't want to go out, they don't need to go out. Where's the problem?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I have no objection to someone not eating meat because they genuinely do not like it. Or for health reasons. But because of guilt? Please.

What if they genuinely don't like it because of guilt? Or is guilt totally unimportant to you?

Mark Hamill · 29-07-2012 3:50pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Meat is a necessity to feel your best and to be as healthy as possible.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/paleo-diet-research/#axzz21zwlnq2D

Its a study with nine people, over just 20 days in total, with no control group. Do I need to say more?

Kooli · 01-08-2012 4:42pm

Avoiding doing something because it causes guilt is not neurotic. It does not require therapy.

Guilt is usually a pretty good guide to our own morals and values. And I think it's a good thing to live in accordance with your morals and values.

And if those morals and values include 'don't eat meat because the treatment of animals is often inhumane, the process is extremely wasteful environmentally, and it is not necessary', I don't think we should be talking about childhood trauma here...

The Corinthian · 01-08-2012 5:07pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

You could say that about everything we consume or use today. Medicine, fuel, clothing etc.

Not reallly - we wear too much clothing than we used to, for example?

Even the poorest in our society today would have a much better quality of life than Henry IV or even the sun king of France, Louis XIV.

Yes, I'm not disputing that. I'm suggesting that in some cases our quality of life has become too good, leading to unhealthy diets and lifestyles.

I do not see how restricting people's choice and eating habits is a good thing. People will always find ways around the restrictions.

Some maybe, but not enough to counteract the effects of higher meat prices.

No it will not work wonders. The poor, the working and middle classes will not be able to afford meat or more precisely, they will have to spend a greater deal of their disposal income on meat.

Actually no. For example, in times of recession - when disposal income decreases - people economise and you tend to find they buy less meat and instead adapt their diet twoards more economical foodstuffs.

Those who control the meat supply will become incredibly rich at the expense of those who don't.

How on Earth did you work that out? Do you actually understand how taxation works?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So what if it is? People do a lot of things out of guilt, doesn't mean they shouldn't do them. Sometimes the guilt has a point.

Sure - but in this case nature would appear to disagree with you.

I said we aren't above animals in some magic, having-domain-over-them way, I never said we weren't different from them.

And I disagree with you - we are above them. So we can trade opinions all you want, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

I wasn't talking about cannibalism here but what difference would it make if it was rare?

Rare animal behaviour is typically against type - unnatural. Thus arguing against typical or natural animal behaviour using unnatural behaviour is a straw man.

I believe in consistent moral declarations. If humanity says something is immoral, then its immoral no matter how many use cognitive dissonance to enjoy being immoral.

It's a pity that the history of human morality contradicts this, as it has rarely, if ever been consistent.

Letting them die out, if thats what would happen, is not immoral. They only exist because of us, so its not like we are allowing some naturally occurring breeds to die out. If its not immoral to let nature take its course for wild breeds, then its not immoral to let domesticated breeds re-enter the wild.

So you're in favour of nature taking it's course in this case, but where it comes to human omnivorous nature, you're against. Go figure.

What if they genuinely don't like it because of guilt? Or is guilt totally unimportant to you?

By the same logic, is all guilt valid for you?

Kooli wrote: »

Guilt is usually a pretty good guide to our own morals and values. And I think it's a good thing to live in accordance with your morals and values.

Really? So all those sexual hang-ups that the Abrahamic religions, in our own experience Roman Catholicism, manifest as guilt are a pretty good guide of right and wrong too? If not, your argument collapses. If so, then you've got more problems than an aversion to certain foods.

And if those morals and values include 'don't eat meat because the treatment of animals is often inhumane, the process is extremely wasteful environmentally, and it is not necessary', I don't think we should be talking about childhood trauma here...

There's that word again in relation to something that is not human. But I agree with you that It's probably not related to trauma (which I already said at the start), but likely down more to the likes of Walt Disney and the artificial humanization of animals in urban popular culture.

Mark Hamill · 01-08-2012 7:24pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure - but in this case nature would appear to disagree with you.

So humanisation of animals bothers you, but humanisation of nature, thats fine? Nature doesn't agree or disagree with anything.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I disagree with you - we are above them. So we can trade opinions all you want, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

It might, if you explained your opinion. How are we above them?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Rare animal behaviour is typically against type - unnatural. Thus arguing against typical or natural animal behaviour using unnatural behaviour is a straw man.

Typically, but not always. Also, even if it was always against type, then how would that make it unnatural? I.e. Where would it be coming from if it was unnatural?

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a pity that the history of human morality contradicts this, as it has rarely, if ever been consistent.

I'm not talking about the history of how human morality changed, I'm talking about morality now.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you're in favour of nature taking it's course in this case, but where it comes to human omnivorous nature, you're against. Go figure.

Nature changes all the time, its not fixed. Our nature doesn't have to be subject purely to our biological impulses, justified by inane notions of "we've always done it that way". Human omnivorous nature is not justified when we have the abstract intelligence and technological know-how that we have.

The Corinthian wrote: »

By the same logic, is all guilt valid for you?

How is a non sequitor the same logic as what I said?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Really? So all those sexual hang-ups that the Abrahamic religions, in our own experience Roman Catholicism, manifest as guilt are a pretty good guide of right and wrong too? If not, your argument collapses. If so, then you've got more problems than an aversion to certain foods.

He said "usually". Nothing is perfect, there will always be flawed or abused versions of ideals and ideas that are wrong. Guilt is a good way of deciding whether or not you should do something, assuming you have a rational sense of morality. If your sense of morality is flawed, then the guilt you feel will be irrational, but that doesn't negate the use of guilt. Its unavoidable, guilt enters into every decision, in some way.

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's that word again in relation to something that is not human. But I agree with you that It's probably not related to trauma (which I already said at the start), but likely down more to the likes of Walt Disney and the artificial humanization of animals in urban popular culture.

Exactly what do you think is bad about humanisation of animals?

The Corinthian · 02-08-2012 12:55pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So humanisation of animals bothers you, but humanisation of nature, thats fine? Nature doesn't agree or disagree with anything.

OK, now this discussion is becoming a joke. I suggest you study the English language a little more before making such arguments because I was no more humanizing nature than I would be implying that a ship is female simply because I would refer to it as 'she'; it is simply a turn of phrase that should never be taken literally - unless you don't actually understand English grammar, naturally.

The rest of your post repeatedly follows the same attempt to derail the discussion in the use of convoluted logic to prove black is white, such as defining 'natural' as coming from nature, ergo everything is natural - even though a woman eating all of her children as soon as they're born would bizarrely fit this definition, while contradict what is understood to be natural animal behaviour.

And it is derailing the discussion because what is disputed is that the guilt felt by some in relation to eating meat is psychologically healthy or not.

I contend that it is not on the basis that it contradicts our biological nature and because it is the product of a modern, urban, typically middle-class and principally Anglo-Saxon tendency to humanize animals in popular culture. At it's most extreme, it leads to potential health issues in vegan diets, requiring artificial supplements to replace those inputs that we are designed (and please don't claim again that my use of this linguistic term implies any religious basis, as that is an asinine accusation) to derive from animal products.

All for animals you believe it is wrong to eat, presumably because they are sentient, but perfectly acceptable to doom to extinction as in that case they are relegated to being simply our creation. Bizarre.

If you are going to debate this with me, I would prefer that you do so without the same nonsensical straw men you've been throwing into the mix to date. Otherwise, I really don't have time for you.

Mr. Loverman · 02-08-2012 12:56pm

I wish I was strong enough to be a vegetarian. The animals do not want to die and I don't need to eat them. It's just my appetite.

I really believe in 100 or 200 years or whatever we will look back at our eating habits and think we were sick bastards.

kildare.17hmr · 02-08-2012 1:45pm

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I really believe in 100 or 200 years or whatever we will look back at our eating habits and think we were sick bastards.

Not a hope that will happen. sure there might be more veggies but nothing like this.

I saw a good programme last night on RTE called Kill it, Cook it, Eat it. they slaughtered and butchered a cow infront of a studio audiance then cooked it up for them to eat, there was people there from all walks even veggies and people who were on the fence about becoming veggie and they were all happy it was humane and i think all but one eat the meat after

The Corinthian · 02-08-2012 2:33pm

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I wish I was strong enough to be a vegetarian. The animals do not want to die and I don't need to eat them. It's just my appetite.

Your appetite comes from the fact that humans are omnivores though.

What gets me though, it that the "animals do not want to die" argument seems to follow little logic. Every time we use detergent to clean the floor we kill (very small) animals. Or how we will tend to show more empathy twoards 'nice' animals such as rabbits, rather than 'nasty' animals such as rats, even though the former are far more ecologically harmful.

Such examples of cognitive dissonance, which was earlier on dismissed by another poster, should at the very least be screaming out at this stage that perhaps such values are not founded on anything rational and perhaps they should be questioned.

I really believe in 100 or 200 years or whatever we will look back at our eating habits and think we were sick bastards.

Maybe. Who knows - morality is ever changing this could well be the case. And in 200 or 300 years we may look back on vegetarian diets as some bizarre practice or fashion that we once followed. History is littered with such u-turns in morality.

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

I saw a good programme last night on RTE called Kill it, Cook it, Eat it. they slaughtered and butchered a cow infront of a studio audiance then cooked it up for them to eat, there was people there from all walks even veggies and people who were on the fence about becoming veggie and they were all happy it was humane and i think all but one eat the meat after

I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that in modern, urban, society we have become disconnected from the reality of food. We have little experience in how it is prepared, grown, slaughtered or whatever, regardless if it is animal or vegetable. Increasingly our contact to animals is through petting zoos and Disney-style cartoons in our childhood and we've become squeamish as a result.

For example, the consumption of fish dropped following the release of the film Finding Nemo - forgive me for saying this, but am I the only one who thinks that a children's cartoon influencing public morality is just a little bit nuts?

And this kind of thing is ultimately is why I would consider the avoidance of meat in our diet, due solely to 'guilt' to be likely a neurosis worthy of professional help.

Mr. Loverman · 02-08-2012 2:45pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

What gets me though, it that the "animals do not want to die" argument seems to follow little logic.

Go to a farm and try to kill an animal. You will quickly see they don't want to die.

We don't have to eat them. There are alternatives.

I'm not going to try to force you to think the way I do so let's not get into a long debate about it. I have better things to do.

The Corinthian · 02-08-2012 3:30pm

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Go to a farm and try to kill an animal. You will quickly see they don't want to die.

You missed the point I made completely; congratulations. No animal wants to die, however can you seriously claim that you hold the life of all animals with equal regard? If not, you're indulging in a fair bit of hypocrisy.

Or perhaps does the reason we kill them become a justification for killing them? If so, your argument that "no animal wants to die" is no longer binding.

We don't have to eat them. There are alternatives.

Sure there are. Question is do the arguments to completely sacrifice our omnivorous diet justify our turning to those alternatives? I've certainly not been convinced, and neither have most other people in society.

I'm not going to try to force you to think the way I do so let's not get into a long debate about it. I have better things to do.

I'm not hugely interested in convincing anyone either as I don't think anyone who adopts a philosophy based on a purely emotional basis can rationally be convinced anyway.

TBH, this thread is more for entertainment value for me.

Mr. Loverman · 02-08-2012 3:38pm

Life isn't so black and white. A germ's life is not equal to an animal's life, or a human's life.

And there is no need to be so condescending all the time. Come on, you're in your 40s now.

theg81der · 02-08-2012 3:47pm

I was veggie for years but for some reason my bloods go funny when I don`t eat meat - and yes of course I tried every alternative. Pregnant now and I needed to eat meat to nourish my baby so I did. I do feel guilty. Theres only one thing which gives me solice and thats that the animal has a good life in a way. It doesn`t have the worries we do.

The Corinthian · 02-08-2012 3:59pm

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Life isn't so black and white. A germ's life is not equal to an animal's life, or a human's life.

So it's not really about "animals don't want to die" then...

And there is no need to be so condescending all the time. Come on, you're in your 40s now.

Don't make it so easy for me then.

I understand that you may feel strongly on this topic, but if you can't really say rationally why this is the case or begin to tie yourself up in logical knots (or attempt to digress as Mark Hamill did) when what you feel is challenged, you do have to take a step back and ask if what you feel makes any sense.

Don't get me wrong; I am not attacking vegetarianism as a lifestyle choice, be it for health or even environmental reasons (although that's another debate). I actually agree that we eat way too much meat in modern, Western society.

However, when I hear guilt-based moral arguments that are full of contradictions and one can see that they likely originate from complexes formed as a result of our urban, middle-class childhoods, I really can't help but to point out that the emperor's willy is swinging in the wind.

Mr. Loverman · 02-08-2012 4:21pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So it's not really about "animals don't want to die" then...

We are talking about eating meat. Look at the title: Do you feel any guilt from eating meat? My answer is yes, because the animal does not want to die.

If it makes you feel any better, if I find a spider in my house I put it outside.

If you want to talk about life in general, that is a different conversation. You can have it with someone else.

The Corinthian · 02-08-2012 4:30pm

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

We are talking about eating meat. Look at the title: Do you feel any guilt from eating meat? My answer is yes, because the animal does not want to die.

No animal wants to die, that includes 'germs' (that may be any type of single-celled organisms or even microscopic insects and arachnids) and other animals that you have no problem killing.

If it makes you feel any better, if I find a spider in my house I put it outside.

How about termites? Or rats?

If you want to talk about life in general, that is a different conversation.

It is, but not the conversation I'm having.

CamperMan · 02-08-2012 4:32pm

I love eating meat

evilmonkee · 02-08-2012 4:40pm

I choose to eat meat. I also choose to ensure (to the best of my ability) that the animals I consume have had a good life.

I only eat Irish beef.
I only eat free range Chicken, eggs and pork.
The only game I eat is shot by friends.

I also mainly eat vegetarian foods as the huge consumption of meat is unsustainable.

Any items which contain meat by products I steer clear of unless they state it is ethically sourced.

I think this debate boils down to how people feel about what they consume and if they stop to think about it.

The life of the animal or the life of the worker picking my vegtables ,tea leaves or the farmer growing them etc. is important to me, so I choose to eat in the most ethical manner which I can.

For me this issue is not just about meat, its about all the living beings who are affected in the process.

Tombo2001 · 02-08-2012 4:41pm

Anyone ever see the animal population pyramid for countries like say Ireland....

It goes (something like)

8 million chickens
3 million sheep
2 million pigs
1.5million cows
600k dogs
600k cats
100k Horses

All basically there to feed or entertain humans....

When you get into the wild animals, its like

10000 otters
15000 badgers
12000 Hedgehogs

and so on......maybe more for rabbits and squirrels, but that would be about it.

Point being.....the opportunity cost of feeding humans isnt just that we kill animals to feed ourselves, its also that feeding those animals requires a huge amount of farmland which destroys and has destroyed the habitats of wild animals....

If you ever look at the map of boglands in Ireland 200 years ago compared to now, its shrunk by 95%. A huge decline in wild animal population associated with that.

Yes I do feel 'guilty' about that.

But if it hadnt happened then I wouldnt be here.

yawha · 02-08-2012 6:42pm

So much armchair psychology and appeals to evolution and "nature" in this thread...

"We [appear to] have evolved to do this, therefore we should do it."

Emphasis on the oft omitted "appear to". Online, people making such claims rarely have degrees in human biology, and tend to just assert things like this. "Common sense" assertions like these have a tendency to be flat out wrong.

Appeals to evolution can pseudointellectually be used to back up all sorts of things with little effort. Similar to making an argument based on "nature".

I say all this as a meat eater, btw. I don't feel guilty about it, but I certainly don't justify it with ridiculous assertions such as we were naturally intended to eat it by virtue of evolution, therefore it is right.

The Corinthian · 02-08-2012 7:04pm

yawha wrote: »

Emphasis on the oft omitted "appear to". Online, people making such claims rarely have degrees in human biology, and tend to just assert things like this.

So we have not evolved as omnivorous? Or that we only 'appear' to have an omnivore's diet? Or is it evolution that you're disagreeing with?

Appeals to evolution can pseudointellectually be used to back up all sorts of things with little effort. Similar to making an argument based on "nature".

For all your accusations of pseudo-intellectualism, you've not actually offered anything beyond a few general, polysyllabic and unsubstantiated opinions.

Pot. Kettle. Black?

yawha · 02-08-2012 7:33pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So we have not evolved as omnivorous? Or that we only 'appear' to have an omnivore's diet? Or is it evolution that you're disagreeing with?

We have evolved to have bodies that function with certain nutrients, and traits which allow us to eat a wide range of food.

Given that vegetarianism has been demonstrably shown to be perfectly healthy when done correctly, we have not "evolved as omnivorous" in that we do not need to eat meat to be healthy, only that we can if we wish to.

Evolution makes no statement on what we should or shouldn't eat, or the morality of anything we do.

The Corinthian · 02-08-2012 8:16pm

yawha wrote: »

We have evolved to have bodies that function with certain nutrients, and traits which allow us to eat a wide range of food.

In other words we are omnivores; we are not limited to either vegetable or meat diets, as herbivores or carnivores are, which is what ultimately sets omnivores apart. There's no 'appearance' in that, but a demonstrable fact.

Given that vegetarianism has been demonstrably shown to be perfectly healthy when done correctly, we have not "evolved as omnivorous" in that we do not need to eat meat to be healthy, only that we can if we wish to.

I totally agree and have repeatedly stated that I have absolutely no objection to a vegetarian diet, nor believe it to be either unhealthy or unnatural.

But a vegetarian diet is not devoid of animal products, such as dairy products and eggs, so we're not exactly rejecting our omnivorous nature. To do that we would have to reject all animal produce, in which case we would end up having health issues - unless we take, typically artificial, supplements.

Evolution makes no statement on what we should or shouldn't eat, or the morality of anything we do.

Which as I've already pointed out above is false. Evolution does make a very clear statement on what we should or shouldn't eat and if you don't believe me feel free to adopt a vegan (or pure meat) diet. Or eat some grass - I expect evolution will make a very clear statement if you did that.

As to the morality of it, there are good moral arguments for eating less meat or perhaps even no meat, but 'guilt' is not one of them.

And in lieu of a rational argument to stop eating meat, I won't.

(Given this I am eating a vegetarian meal tonight, but because there are plenty of health reasons to eat less meat and more vegetables).

yawha · 03-08-2012 12:21am

The Corinthian wrote: »

In other words we are omnivores; we are not limited to either vegetable or meat diets, as herbivores or carnivores are, which is what ultimately sets omnivores apart. There's no 'appearance' in that, but a demonstrable fact.

I'm a little confused as to what your point is.

We can eat meat, yes. That we are omnivores in this sense says nothing about the morality of meat eating. Seems like an entirely moot point to me.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But a vegetarian diet is not devoid of animal products, such as dairy products and eggs, so we're not exactly rejecting our omnivorous nature. To do that we would have to reject all animal produce, in which case we would end up having health issues - unless we take, typically artificial, supplements.

Sure. Meat eating is the topic of this thread though. I'm not sure what the fact that we are omnivorous has to do with the discussion.

However, what is wrong with artificial supplements? You just dismissed them as idiotic earlier with absolutely no reasoning. If they enable people to live healthily without causing harm to other sentient beings, how is that idiotic?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which as I've already pointed out above is false. Evolution does make a very clear statement on what we should or shouldn't eat and if you don't believe me feel free to adopt a vegan (or pure meat) diet. Or eat some grass - I expect evolution will make a very clear statement if you did that.

? It is morally wrong to eat grass because it is likely to make me ill?

The Corinthian wrote: »

As to the morality of it, there are good moral arguments for eating less meat or perhaps even no meat, but 'guilt' is not one of them.

Farm animals are sentient beings who are often subject to suffering and are slaughtered prematurely for what essentially amounts to human indulgence. I can certainly understand where guilt comes from and why this would be an important factor in a someone choosing to become a vegetarian/vegan.

I mean, if you don't have any empathy for animals, I can see why you would reject this. It's bizarre that you would categorize those with differing empathy levels as being neurotic or brainwashed though.

Mark Hamill · 03-08-2012 10:20am

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK, now this discussion is becoming a joke. I suggest you study the English language a little more before making such arguments because I was no more humanizing nature than I would be implying that a ship is female simply because I would refer to it as 'she'; it is simply a turn of phrase that should never be taken literally - unless you don't actually understand English grammar, naturally.

So let me get this straight: I said that people don't do a lot of things because of guilt, sometimes that guilt has a point. Your reply "nature would appear to disagree with you", you now say, is not a humanisation of nature, its merely saying what, not everyone feels the guilt? What type of argument is that? If you aren't humanising nature, then what difference does it make what nature is now? If its not humanised, then why exactly should we be limited by it? What difference does it make?

The Corinthian wrote: »

The rest of your post ...

Don't label my post as derailing and just reassert the points you already made because of your inability to respond to my points, that's not how discussion works. Most of what I had in my last post was questioning what you mean by your various points, how can that be derailing?

Do you feel any guilt from eating meat?

Comments