Do you feel any guilt from eating meat?

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 6:15pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure. But if that 'unease' is at a level where it invokes strong feelings of guilt and even nausea, then you've a problem. Most should be able to accept that.

Why is the solution to have therapy so you can eat meat rather than just don't eat meat?

The Corinthian wrote: »

If Ireland was a predominantly Buddhist country or you were brought up as one, then you might have a point. Or not; after all, many of the psychological hangups that Roman Catholicism in our culture has given us, for example, can hardly be referred to as normal either.

Exactly. Whether something is normal or not is simply a measure of how popular it is, not how valid it is.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now you're seriously nit picking. I am in no way promoting Intelligent Design, just because you didn't like my turn of phrase.

Your turn of phrase seems to be, at least partially, your justification. We should eat meat because we where designed to eat meat.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I asked "how many animals, and specifically mammals, commonly engage in cannibalism as part of their diet". Of mammals the answer is none. Many will kill members of the same species, but actual cannibalism is actually relatively rare, even amongst chimps, leopards and lions. If you actually read your link, you'll see this.

Rare, but not unheard of, and not because it's taboo amongst those animals. I never said it was common. My original point was that there is nothing, biologically, stopping people from eating humans. We are as edible as any farm animal.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Especially amongst mammals, a number of taboos have developed that are evolutionary in origin, such as cannibalism and incest. This doesn't mean that the taboos are not broken, only that they are the exception rather than the rule and thus typically aberrant behaviour.

Which just adds to my original point, doesn't it? Humans don't eat other people (animals don't eat other animals of the same species) because of social reasons, not biological ones.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But if the reason we shouldn't is due to an environmentally acquired phobia or complex, then I hardly think this is a good reason to buck nature.

Every human taste is an environmentally acquired complex, how could we ever justify doing anything with your argument? We use technology to improve our productivity because of a number of phobias and complexes which drive us to do so (desire for security, social status etc.).

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, but given I know a few vegans, whom I have otherwise presumed would be fewer in number than 'true' vegetarians, I suspect that there are in reality fewer such 'true' vegetarians than vegans. As there aren't that many vegans out there, then I would conclude that there are very few 'true' vegetarians. QED.

Argument by facebook friend count? Vegans are usually rarer than vegetarians, but maybe your social groups are skewered towards them more.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a product of nurture and not nature?

No, I would expect that its both nature and nurture. Doesn't matter though, replace "members of the same sex" with "redheads" and you will get the same point. Every specific taste everyone has results from some serious of events in their upbringing. You seem to be arbitrarily labelling the unpopular ones as unhealthy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would you prefer to be a slave to your psychosis's?

I would prefer people to be slaves to neither. We have strong biological urges to reproduce, doesn't mean that we have to mount the nearest fertile woman whenever we get an erection.

The Corinthian · 23-07-2012 7:03pm

Macha wrote: »

Why are you talking about nausea?

Because the OP brought it up:

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I don't know, the smell, the blood when you're cooking it, it makes most people's mouth water but turns my stomach.

Remember, the direction that this discussion took did so as a result of my response to him/her?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why is the solution to have therapy so you can eat meat rather than just don't eat meat?

Sure, let's adopt that policy for all neuroses then.

Exactly. Whether something is normal or not is simply a measure of how popular it is, not how valid it is.

You missed the point I made.

Your turn of phrase seems to be, at least partially, your justification. We should eat meat because we where designed to eat meat.

You're over-analysing.

Rare, but not unheard of, and not because it's taboo amongst those animals. I never said it was common. My original point was that there is nothing, biologically, stopping people from eating humans. We are as edible as any farm animal.

Again you've missed the point. These taboos are a product of evolution, just as our omnivorous diet is. You can go against it, but if you do, that is an aberration - which may not be a bad thing, but I do think you need to at least show this first.

Which just adds to my original point, doesn't it? Humans don't eat other people (animals don't eat other animals of the same species) because of social reasons, not biological ones.

Incorrect. If so, then most animals don't for 'social' reasons either, which is of course nonsense.

Every human taste is an environmentally acquired complex, how could we ever justify doing anything with your argument? We use technology to improve our productivity because of a number of phobias and complexes which drive us to do so (desire for security, social status etc.).

Sorry, I should have said neuroses.

Argument by facebook friend count? Vegans are usually rarer than vegetarians, but maybe your social groups are skewered towards them more.

Perhaps, but given my age and fairly wide acquaintance, I doubt it. No biggie; either way, it's anecdotal evidence.

No, I would expect that its both nature and nurture. Doesn't matter though, replace "members of the same sex" with "redheads" and you will get the same point. Every specific taste everyone has results from some serious of events in their upbringing. You seem to be arbitrarily labelling the unpopular ones as unhealthy.

Actually, there's nothing arbitrary about how I've labelled anything. I've clearly and repeatedly said that if a compulsion, or whatever you prefer to call it, causes needless and often extreme problems, then it's most likely unhealthy. And if your aversion to meat is such that you feel ill just being around it, then honestly you have a bit of a problem, regardless of whither you eat it or not. If you are forced into a vegan diet by such a condition that forces you to take supplements simply to stay healthy, then you have a problem.

I would prefer people to be slaves to neither. We have strong biological urges to reproduce, doesn't mean that we have to mount the nearest fertile woman whenever we get an erection.

No, but if you can't eat a burger because something in your upbringing has made you so averse to meat that you'll feel ill or racked with guilt at the thought of it, then you are a slave as it is no longer a choice.

Jester252 · 24-07-2012 12:14am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

I dont feel bad eating meet. Its what were ment to do.

According to who/what?

Evolution

Mark Hamill · 24-07-2012 1:25am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure, let's adopt that policy for all neuroses then.

Or we could look at them on a case by case basis. If someone doesn't like doing something, if they don't actually need to do it (thanks to modern technology) then why exactly should they do it?

The Corinthian wrote: »

You missed the point I made.

Which is?

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're over-analysing.

If you say so.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again you've missed the point. These taboos are a product of evolution, just as our omnivorous diet is. You can go against it, but if you do, that is an aberration - which may not be a bad thing, but I do think you need to at least show this first.

Evolution means change. Every change along an evolutionary course is an aberration on what came before. There are many good reasons for not eating meat, not least of which is that we don't need to and animals don't want to be eaten.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Incorrect. If so, then most animals don't for 'social' reasons either, which is of course nonsense.

Well they dont do it because of biological reasons, as we see they are biologically capable of doing it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, I should have said neuroses.

My point would have been the same.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, there's nothing arbitrary about how I've labelled anything. I've clearly and repeatedly said that if a compulsion, or whatever you prefer to call it, causes needless and often extreme problems, then it's most likely unhealthy.

So homosexuality is unhealthy? What about the compulsion for equal rights for women (in places like Saudi Arabia)? The thing about "needless and often extreme problems" is that they usually arise from human environments being intolerant to evolution. Me not liking meat doesn't, in of itself, cause me any problems - I just don't eat it. What causes me problems is food in the west secretly containing meat (think gelatine or carmine or rennet) and the manufacturers, and society at large, not giving a crap about it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if your aversion to meat is such that you feel ill just being around it, then honestly you have a bit of a problem, regardless of whither you eat it or not.

Why? Meat is disgusting, its bits of dead animals. If I don't eat it, and I'm not around it, then how would I have a problem?

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you are forced into a vegan diet by such a condition that forces you to take supplements simply to stay healthy, then you have a problem.

no problem, if you take the supplements.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, but if you can't eat a burger because something in your upbringing has made you so averse to meat that you'll feel ill or racked with guilt at the thought of it, then you are a slave as it is no longer a choice.

Of course its a choice, its a choice to not feel sick or feel guilty about it.

Mark Hamill · 24-07-2012 1:35am

Jester252 wrote: »

Evolution

If evolution "means" we are supposed to eat meat, does that mean gravity "means" we are supposed to fall?

Evolution is a blind, impersonal biological process. We aren't meant to do anything we evolved to do, we simply have the ability to do it because a lucky ancestor had a random mutation in a random environment that combined to give him/her a better chance of reproducing.

Jester252 · 24-07-2012 8:39am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

Evolution

If evolution "means" we are supposed to eat meat, does that mean gravity "means" we are supposed to fall?

Evolution is a blind, impersonal biological process. We aren't meant to do anything we evolved to do, we simply have the ability to do it because a lucky ancestor had a random mutation in a random environment that combined to give him/her a better chance of reproducing.

and that why we have the tooth structure we have because the veggie was too weak

Mark Hamill · 24-07-2012 11:35am

Jester252 wrote: »

and that why we have the tooth structure we have because the veggie was too weak

BraziliaNZ · 24-07-2012 11:57am

God, psychological issues? I don't like the smell or look of blood, whether it be human or animal. When you cook beef a lot of it comes out sometimes. I've never had any trauma as a child. I could eat beef now and enjoy it probably but there's a certain guilt associated with it because I feel like I'm hurting a living creature. I don't think feeling sympathy for animals requires therapy, surely if we all started to think like this it would be evolution on our part, we don't really need much meat or any at all to live healthily.

The Corinthian · 24-07-2012 12:53pm

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

God, psychological issues? I don't like the smell or look of blood, whether it be human or animal. When you cook beef a lot of it comes out sometimes. I've never had any trauma as a child. I could eat beef now and enjoy it probably but there's a certain guilt associated with it because I feel like I'm hurting a living creature. I don't think feeling sympathy for animals requires therapy, surely if we all started to think like this it would be evolution on our part, we don't really need much meat or any at all to live healthily.

I think you need to read up on what neurosis's are. To begin with it does not require a trauma to form. Secondly, empathy is not a bad thing, however over-empathizing can be, especially when it can adversely affect one's life.

Finally, I completely agree that we eat too much meat nowadays and that we could and should eat far less. I also concur that we can also live perfectly normal live normal lives without eating meat at all, although we do still need animal products (e.g. dairy, eggs), without which we would end up with nutritional issues.

@Mark Hamill
I don't think we're going to come to any conclusions in our dialogue and, TBH, some of the arguments you're coming out with at this stage are a bit too nutty for me; I've neither suggested support for ID or homosexuality is unhealthy anywhere, and I certainly do not think that 'choosing' something because you are compelled to do so is a real choice.

Presently, I don't really have time to respond to all the different discussions I'm on in Boards, so I do need to cull a few of the one's I'm on, and given that this is a topic I don't really care that much about, I'll leave it at that.

Mark Hamill · 25-07-2012 10:47pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I also concur that we can also live perfectly normal live normal lives without eating meat at all, although we do still need animal products (e.g. dairy, eggs), without which we would end up with nutritional issues.

We don't need animal products. We need nutrients that most people only get from animal sources, but its possible to source them elsewhere, even synthetically, if we have to.

The Corinthian wrote: »

@Mark Hamill
I don't think we're going to come to any conclusions in our dialogue and, TBH, some of the arguments you're coming out with at this stage are a bit too nutty for me; I've neither suggested support for ID or homosexuality is unhealthy anywhere

You said: "if a compulsion, or whatever you prefer to call it, causes needless and often extreme problems, then it's most likely unhealthy". Well homosexuality is a compulsion. And it certain parts of the world it can cause a lot of problems for those who feel the compulsion (be it from the pain of rejecting the compulsion to the social stigmas associated with acting on it), problems which many would describe as needless (they wouldn't have these problems if they just stopped being gay).

Your entire argument is to label something you don't agree with as a form of mental distress, requiring of therapy, based on some bizarre assumption that avoiding meat causes people unhealthy, problems. Most people who don't eat meat don't actually have any health issues from it (you need to be aware of what you eat, but thats somethign which meat eaters really need to do to). Even vegans only take a few suppliments, how can taking a couple of pills a day be a problem? The only issue I have as a vegetarian, and the main one for most vegetarians/vegans, is in not knowing if a specific food is actually suitable for vegetarians, because most food makers hide as much of their ingredients as possible. And that problems isn't vegetarains fault, its societies fault for not giving enough of a crap what goes into their food. If there is somethign wrong with me because I don't eat meat because it turns my stomach, then what the hell is wrong with meat eaters who complain at being told that their food actually contains animal bones or crushed bugs because they want to able to eat it in ignorance?

The Corinthian wrote: »

and I certainly do not think that 'choosing' something because you are compelled to do so is a real choice.

Every choice is based on some sort of compulsion (or usually a mixture of multiple compulsions), be it a choice to avoid a certain food because of how it turns your stomach or a choice to watch a specific film because you love scif-fi or a choice to only date redheads because the first topless woman you saw was Kate Winslet in Titanic.

tayto lover · 25-07-2012 10:55pm

Having a lovely roast beef sandwich at the moment. Very juicy and tender.

Jester252 · 26-07-2012 12:37am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

and that why we have the tooth structure we have because the veggie was too weak

Well Put
Eating meat is how we got to where we are today. We need it to survive

Macha · 26-07-2012 8:17am

Jester252 wrote: »

Eating meat is how we got to where we are today. We need it to survive

Do you have evidence that we need to survive? Are vegetarians dropping like flies around the world? No.

Sam Kade · 26-07-2012 8:33am

stimpson wrote: »

I was a vegetarian from the age of 14 up until a couple of years ago. I started eating meat again on medical advice. I guess as you get older you're less idealistic, so it doesn't really bother me. Animal welfare is still important to me, so I only buy Free range chicken and ethically raised beef. If I could get free range pork products I'd happily buy those too, but I haven't seen them on sale.

There is such a product as free range pork but it isn't recognized in Ireland as there is no proper regulation on free-range Irish pig farming.

Jester252 · 26-07-2012 10:08am

Macha wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

Eating meat is how we got to where we are today. We need it to survive

Do you have evidence that we need to survive? Are vegetarians dropping like flies around the world? No.

How do you think we get protein from?

kildare.17hmr · 26-07-2012 11:35am

We can get protien from other sources than meat. Even ill admit we dont HAVE to eat meat. I eat it because i enjoy it, if i disnt like it i just wouldnt eat it. Guilt would never come into it for me

Macha · 26-07-2012 11:36am

Jester252 wrote: »

How do you think we get protein from?

Well, that didn't really answer my question. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein.

Riddle101 · 26-07-2012 6:12pm

I feel a little guilt from eating meat, and even considered becoming a vegetarian. But at the end of the day, I just can't make that jump. I hate vegetables, and am very much a meat eater.

Jester252 · 26-07-2012 7:38pm

Macha wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

How do you think we get protein from?

Well, that didn't really answer my question. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein.

Evidence that we need it is biology. If we didn't need meat then why is it part of a human diet pool?

Procrastastudy · 26-07-2012 7:44pm

Jester252 wrote: »

Evidence that we need it is biology. If we didn't need meat then why is it part of a human diet pool?

A better question would be - why does it taste so good?

Than answer is because we are hard wired to go for certain aspects of food fat being one.

This argument about evolution is spurious at best though - our diet in even the last few hundred years bears absolutely no resemblance to what people in Northern Europe would have evolved to eat. Take our sugar consumption which has grown massively.

I'm not supporting the don't eat meat side of this argument but many aspects of the world would be improved by eating a hell of a lot less of it. Then so would any number of things we consume.

Macha · 27-07-2012 10:32am

Jester252 wrote: »

Evidence that we need it is biology. If we didn't need meat then why is it part of a human diet pool?

The definition of 'need' in this context is that humans can't live without it. I think that is refuted every day by the existence of millions of vegetarians. Bananas are also part of the human diet pool but I don't think anyone would argue that we 'need' them to survive.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I'm not supporting the don't eat meat side of this argument but many aspects of the world would be improved by eating a hell of a lot less of it. Then so would any number of things we consume.

+1

Jester252 · 27-07-2012 10:51am

Macha wrote: »

The definition of 'need' in this context is that humans can't live without it. I think that is refuted every day by the existence of millions of vegetarians. Bananas are also part of the human diet pool but I don't think anyone would argue that we 'need' them to survive.

The same can be said about fruit and veg.
You won't live a healthly life but you can live without them. I don't understand this meat guily that you think we should have or how eating meat is wrong. If you look at this on a large scale vegetarians are the odd ones out.

annascott · 27-07-2012 11:23am

I was a vegetarian for about 15 years for purely ethical reasons. When I moved to the country and started to see actual animals in fields lambs, cows etc. it was the final straw and I stopped all meat except fish. (Maybe that made me pescatarian instead of vegetarian?) Eventually, I started eating meat (chicken, turkey, beef and pork) due to social pressures. However, I am thinking of giving it up again. I buy organic wherever possible and only eat free range eggs, but I still feel horrible about it. I have even started to feel bad about crab and lobster which were always my favourite food. Last summer I got two live lobsters straight from a fishing boat, but on the way home, guilt got to me and I drove back to the sea and set them free again!

Procrastastudy · 27-07-2012 11:58am

annascott wrote: »

I was a vegetarian for about 15 years for purely ethical reasons. When I moved to the country and started to see actual animals in fields lambs, cows etc. it was the final straw and I stopped all meat except fish. (Maybe that made me pescatarian instead of vegetarian?) Eventually, I started eating meat (chicken, turkey, beef and pork) due to social pressures. However, I am thinking of giving it up again. I buy organic wherever possible and only eat free range eggs, but I still feel horrible about it. I have even started to feel bad about crab and lobster which were always my favourite food. Last summer I got two live lobsters straight from a fishing boat, but on the way home, guilt got to me and I drove back to the sea and set them free again!

Sorry but I have to address you're reasoning here - ethical grounds?

Cows / sheep in a field - thats where the ethically raised ones live eating grass. The non-ethiclly raised ones are in a feed pen somewhere being fed corn and anti-biotics.

Chicken - raised in some of the cruelest conditions imaginable - I suspect turkeys don't get a much better deal.

Crab and Lobster - You're aware lobsters are boiled alive I assume?

Macha · 27-07-2012 3:39pm

Jester252 wrote: »

The same can be said about fruit and veg.
You won't live a healthly life but you can live without them. I don't understand this meat guily that you think we should have or how eating meat is wrong. If you look at this on a large scale vegetarians are the odd ones out.

Are you saying that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy? Can you back that up?

And do you think that morality is decided by the majority? Vegetarians may make up the minority but that doesn't make a case for them being wrong. My basis for saying current levels of meat consumption in developed countries is wrong is because it is based on inhumane conditions for animals and is puts a huge strain on resources. Whether I'm right or not has little to do with how many people agree with me.

The Corinthian · 27-07-2012 3:53pm

I know, I'm going to regret this, but...

annascott wrote: »

I was a vegetarian for about 15 years for purely ethical reasons. When I moved to the country and started to see actual animals in fields lambs, cows etc. it was the final straw and I stopped all meat except fish. (Maybe that made me pescatarian instead of vegetarian?) Eventually, I started eating meat (chicken, turkey, beef and pork) due to social pressures. However, I am thinking of giving it up again. I buy organic wherever possible and only eat free range eggs, but I still feel horrible about it. I have even started to feel bad about crab and lobster which were always my favourite food. Last summer I got two live lobsters straight from a fishing boat, but on the way home, guilt got to me and I drove back to the sea and set them free again!

This post is a good example of why I see much of the aversion to eating meat to be based on neurosis, rather than any rational choice.

Macha wrote: »

And do you think that morality is decided by the majority?

I think you'll find it pretty much is. Morality may be dictated and/or enforced by elite groups in society, but ultimately morality is what is believed to be right or wrong by the majority of that society.

I don't think anyone has suggested that vegetarianism (or veganism) is morally wrong, btw.

My basis for saying current levels of meat consumption in developed countries is wrong is because it is based on inhumane conditions for animals and is puts a huge strain on resources.

Heh. Walt Disney has a lot to answer for.

Macha · 27-07-2012 7:59pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you'll find it pretty much is. Morality may be dictated and/or enforced by elite groups in society, but ultimately morality is what is believed to be right or wrong by the majority of that society.

This is not accurate. It is like saying that the truth is decided by the majority. It may be true in a relative sense but not in an absolute sense. Slavery was considered normal until it wasn't. Moral trends ebb and flow but reality remains. And the reality of the impacts of Western levels of meat consumption are not pretty.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think anyone has suggested that vegetarianism (or veganism) is morally wrong, btw.

No, but the moral argument based on reality is being refuted by some sort of biological determinism argument, which I find extremely odd.

Mark Hamill · 27-07-2012 11:04pm

Jester252 wrote: »

Well Put
Eating meat is how we got to where we are today. We need it to survive

We used to do a lot of things in order to get where we got today. Even though we still required nutrients that are easiest to get from meat, we don't need to get them from meat. Even if you completely forego all animal based products, the worst you will need is a pill or two to ensure you get everything. We don't need to eat meat.

Mark Hamill · 27-07-2012 11:08pm

Riddle101 wrote: »

I feel a little guilt from eating meat, and even considered becoming a vegetarian. But at the end of the day, I just can't make that jump. I hate vegetables, and am very much a meat eater.

Every single one? I hate nearly all vegetables and am still vegetarian. Besides fruits and breads (and whatever vegetables you can stand, even if its just baked beans and mashed potatoes) there are lots of processed vegetarian foods and imitation meats that have a big variety of tastes.

Mark Hamill · 27-07-2012 11:20pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

This post is a good example of why I see much of the aversion to eating meat to be based on neurosis, rather than any rational choice.

The poster may have presented some cognitive dissonance in her views on animals, but no different to the vast majority of meat eaters who consider cows fair game to be eaten, while horses or dogs are above such uses.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you'll find it pretty much is. Morality may be dictated and/or enforced by elite groups in society, but ultimately morality is what is believed to be right or wrong by the majority of that society.

But what if a majority act counter to some general moral notion, but fail to recognise that because of cognitive dissonance? Does their actions become both moral and immoral at once? Or are they immoral, despite how many of them fail to see it?

The Corinthian · 28-07-2012 2:32pm

Macha wrote: »

This is not accurate. It is like saying that the truth is decided by the majority. It may be true in a relative sense but not in an absolute sense. Slavery was considered normal until it wasn't. Moral trends ebb and flow but reality remains. And the reality of the impacts of Western levels of meat consumption are not pretty.

What reality? We're discussing morality, not physics. The morality of slavery is not something one can measure empirically and arrive at any absolute 'truth'.

Ultimately morality in any society is what is accepted as 'conventional wisdom'. Naturally it differs from society to society or epoch to epoch, but until then, that's how it's defined until it and 'truth' is changed.

No, but the moral argument based on reality is being refuted by some sort of biological determinism argument, which I find extremely odd.

Why odd? It's hard evidence in one direction in the argument. While health and environmental data can act as hard evidence in the other direction.

I don't honestly think that anyone has suggested that vegetarianism is wrong, only that eating meat is not wrong.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The poster may have presented some cognitive dissonance in her views on animals, but no different to the vast majority of meat eaters who consider cows fair game to be eaten, while horses or dogs are above such uses.

Actually I think you'll find that her position is significantly more extreme, as demonstrated by the lengths she will go to avoid the psychological effects of her neurosis, in her lobster story.

Honestly, I find the increasing trend in 'humanization' of animals to be pretty ridiculous. I loved Bambi too as a kid, but as I grew older I also realized that Bambi tastes really good with a cream sauce, because this is where I am in the food chain.

And we can reject that role and natural inclination if we want to, but does it make sense? Not to me.

But what if a majority act counter to some general moral notion, but fail to recognise that because of cognitive dissonance? Does their actions become both moral and immoral at once? Or are they immoral, despite how many of them fail to see it?

Depends where you're standing.

Finnbar01 · 28-07-2012 4:37pm

Sleepy wrote: »

Absolutely none. The vast, vast majority of the animals we eat have only come into existence for that purpose anyway. Could cows, sheep or chicken survive as wild species in the modern world? I don't think so tbh.

I'd be firmly in support of fishing quotas where they're based on protecting species from being over-fished and have stopped eating Cod for this reason. Were there a comparable situation with meat e.g. if Elephant meat was a "normal" thing to have in supermarkets, I wouldn't eat that either.

AFAIK, cows need to be milked regularly, so cows would never be able to survive in the wild.

Macha · 28-07-2012 5:45pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

What reality? We're discussing morality, not physics. The morality of slavery is not something one can measure empirically and arrive at any absolute 'truth'.

Ultimately morality in any society is what is accepted as 'conventional wisdom'. Naturally it differs from society to society or epoch to epoch, but until then, that's how it's defined until it and 'truth' is changed.

True but by modern standards, most people would find the truth about the meat industry very immoral, it's just the same industry does a very good job of keeping that sort of information out of the public domain.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why odd? It's hard evidence in one direction in the argument. While health and environmental data can act as hard evidence in the other direction.

Becuase the biological argument doesn't prove that we need to eat meat. There are no particular negative impacts from not eating meat, but I see a while host of them in the opposite direction. So I don't see the biological argument as particularly compelling either in terms of us 'needing' to eat meat, or in terms of somehow justifying any negative impacts (or even bothering to reduce consumptino/find more sustainable alternatives) because of that 'need'.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't honestly think that anyone has suggested that vegetarianism is wrong, only that eating meat is not wrong.

No but the point is discussions on the philosophical level are not very interesting. I have no objection to eating meat per se, my issue is with the impacts of what meat we eat and how much we eat it.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

AFAIK, cows need to be milked regularly, so cows would never be able to survive in the wild.

Cows are domesticated and so in that sense, yes, they wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. However, the reason they have to be milked regularly is because they are kept pregnant pretty much the whole time they're alive. There is a big space between industrial dairy farming of today and the idea of letting cows run wild.

The Corinthian · 28-07-2012 6:15pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

AFAIK, cows need to be milked regularly, so cows would never be able to survive in the wild.

My understanding is that cows continue to produce milk because they continue to produce offspring (who are instead fed a substitute) and either slaughtered early on as veal, as adults or become dairy cows themselves. We could sterilize them, but then they'd stop producing milk.

Egg laying chickens produce eggs from about 20 weeks old and the quality begins to degrade from about 25 weeks. Typically they're slaughtered after a year as they are of little benefit as egg producers, despite the fact that they can live for several more years.

For the production of wool, slaughter is also required as a means of controlling animal numbers as sheep will birth between three to seven offspring per year. Sterilization could be an alternative solution however.

In all cases, without the slaughter for meat production purposes, the production of milk, wool and eggs would likely become prohibitively expensive. For example, the overheads for producing eggs would go from housing, feeding and caring for poultry that are productive for about six months of their one year life span (prior to slaughter), to housing, feeding and caring for poultry that are productive for about six months of their six year life span (prior to death by natural causes). Fancy paying €2 per egg in Tesco's?

Finally, given that all of these animals are domesticated - that is the product of thousands of years of selective breeding by humans - it is questionable that they would survive in the wild, not that there is much 'wild' left in the first place. Thus not farming them at all would likely doom them to extinction.

You can actually see this with horses; 120 years ago, horses would have been a common site on our streets - so common that in 1894, the Times grimly predicted that by 1950 every street in London would be buried in 9 feet of horse shìt. Then came the automobile and horse numbers declined drastically to a tiny fraction of what they were, the few remaining saved largely by our use of horses in sport, particularly racing, and spoilt middle-class girls.

Unfortunately pig racing never took off as a sport, so if we stopped eating them, they're more than likely to go the way of the Dodo, as beyond the products of slaughter (meat and hide), they have nothing to offer us.

So, if you do want us all to stop eating meat, then I would think about what the consequences of that may be.

Macha wrote: »

True but by modern standards, most people would find the truth about the meat industry very immoral, it's just the same industry does a very good job of keeping that sort of information out of the public domain.

Thank you for your opinion. I would not agree with it. There; we both have opinions.

Becuase the biological argument doesn't prove that we need to eat meat. There are no particular negative impacts from not eating meat, but I see a while host of them in the opposite direction. So I don't see the biological argument as particularly compelling either in terms of us 'needing' to eat meat, or in terms of somehow justifying any negative impacts (or even bothering to reduce consumptino/find more sustainable alternatives) because of that 'need'.

I have repeatedly said we eat too much meat. But this does not imply that the solution is to stop eating meat - that is a logical fallacy.

Like it or not, we do realistically need to eat animal products for a healthy diet, otherwise we're essentially forced to take supplements - and when you have to do that, only an idiot would not begin to question the validity of their beliefs.

And while these animal products can be limited to eggs, dairy products and the like, as the above response explains, it's quite difficult to get away from the uncomfortable realities that come with animal husbandry and farming.

No but the point is discussions on the philosophical level are not very interesting. I have no objection to eating meat per se, my issue is with the impacts of what meat we eat and how much we eat it.

I would completely agree with how much meat we eat, but what meat? I presume you mean encourage people to eat healthier and more ecologically friendly meats? If so, absolutely.

Cows are domesticated and so in that sense, yes, they wouldn't be able to survive in the wild.

So are pigs, poultry, sheep and pretty much all common farm livestock. What do you expect after ten thousand years of farming?

Macha · 28-07-2012 6:41pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thank you for your opinion. I would not agree with it. There; we both have opinions.

Of course we both have opinions: we're having a debate about something on an internet forum. What are you trying to say?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I have repeatedly said we eat too much meat. But this does not imply that the solution is to stop eating meat - that is a logical fallacy.

Like it or not, we do realistically need to eat animal products for a healthy diet, otherwise we're essentially forced to take supplements - and when you have to do that, only an idiot would not begin to question the validity of their beliefs.

And while these animal products can be limited to eggs, dairy products and the like, as the above response explains, it's quite difficult to get away from the uncomfortable realities that come with animal husbandry and farming.

Ah, I must have missed where you said we eat too much meat. That is also my view and I don't see the solution as stopping to eat meat either. But I can't agree with you that vegetarians have to take supplements. I'd like some evidence of this. On a purely anecdotal level, my boyfriend is vegetarian, takes no supplements and regularly runs marathons, donates blood and passes annual health checks with no issues.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would completely agree with how much meat we eat, but what meat? I presume you mean encourage people to eat healthier and more ecologically friendly meats? If so, absolutely.

Well, I don't see unprocessed meat as unhealthy, but it would be better if people went for quality over quantity rather than vice versa!

The Corinthian wrote: »

So are pigs, poultry, sheep and pretty much all common farm livestock. What do you expect after ten thousand years of farming?

I see a difference between the forced impregnation of, say, Turkeys because they're not physically capable of doing so without human intervention any more, and keeping female animals pregnant throughout their adult life to ensure they lactate. That is something specific to the dairy industry.

The Corinthian · 28-07-2012 7:01pm

Macha wrote: »

Of course we both have opinions: we're having a debate about something on an internet forum. What are you trying to say?

Having an opinion does not make it true and if that's all we rely upon in debate then we're really not going to get anywhere as my unsubstantiated opinion is just as good as your unsubstantiated opinion.

But I can't agree with you that vegetarians have to take supplements.

I never said that. I stated that "we do realistically need to eat animal products for a healthy diet, otherwise we're essentially forced to take supplements" and last time I checked vegetarians do eat animal products such as eggs and cheese. Vegans, who do not, tend to fall into the situation where they have to take supplements.

Well, I don't see unprocessed meat as unhealthy, but it would be better if people went for quality over quantity rather than vice versa!

No argument there. We eat too much meat, as a society, and poor quality meat at that.

I see a difference between the forced impregnation of, say, Turkeys because they're not physically capable of doing so without human intervention any more, and keeping female animals pregnant throughout their adult life to ensure they lactate. That is something specific to the dairy industry.

Makes little difference, in that if we eat less meat it will result in a cull. If we stop eating meat, then this will in many cases result in the extinction of some domesticated species. Hardly improves their lot, which does weaken the 'moral argument'.

Mark Hamill · 28-07-2012 11:23pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually I think you'll find that her position is significantly more extreme, as demonstrated by the lengths she will go to avoid the psychological effects of her neurosis, in her lobster story.

What lengths? Releasing the lobsters? What about the lengths she went to appease social pressures? Eating meats she didn't want to? Why no word on the neurosis involved in that?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Honestly, I find the increasing trend in 'humanization' of animals to be pretty ridiculous.

Its not humanisation of animals, its recognising that humans are not some magic level above animals. The justification for not eating each other applies to other animals too, we don't need to eat them and they don't want to be eaten, so why should we eat them?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I loved Bambi too as a kid, but as I grew older I also realized that Bambi tastes really good with a cream sauce, because this is where I am in the food chain.

Since when are we uncontrollably subject to the food chain? Should we not care if people are eaten by wild animals, because thats where they where in the food chain at that moment? What has taste got to do with anything? Do you think cannibals eat people despite the taste of human flesh?

The Corinthian wrote: »

And we can reject that role and natural inclination if we want to, but does it make sense? Not to me.

What role? The food chain is not some order that has come down from the heavens. The default position should not be that we eat meat, and any change is a rejection, The default should be the null hypothesis, because evolution is blind, with no intelligence directing it or mandating some outcome. The arguments should be based on what we need to do to fulfil the biological requirements we have and we don't need to eat meat, not from a nutrient point of view, not from a conservationalist point of view, not even from a taste point of view.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Depends where you're standing.

Why?

Mark Hamill · 28-07-2012 11:30pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, if you do want us all to stop eating meat, then I would think about what the consequences of that may be.

The consequences would be that breeds of animals that we created merely to sustain our level of consumption would no longer exist, this would not effect the current number of wild breeds of cows, chickens, pigs, horses etc., so I don't see the issue.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Like it or not, we do realistically need to eat animal products for a healthy diet, otherwise we're essentially forced to take supplements - and when you have to do that, only an idiot would not begin to question the validity of their beliefs.

That is a logical fallacy, Just because we may need supplements doesn't mean we wouldn't be healthy. The supplements would satisfy our biological needs for certain nutrients, so what is the problem?

The Corinthian · 28-07-2012 11:58pm

This silliness is what I was afraid of...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What lengths? Releasing the lobsters? What about the lengths she went to appease social pressures? Eating meats she didn't want to? Why no word on the neurosis involved in that?

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.

Its not humanisation of animals, its recognising that humans are not some magic level above animals. The justification for not eating each other applies to other animals too, we don't need to eat them and they don't want to be eaten, so why should we eat them?

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

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

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.

What role? The food chain is not some order that has come down from the heavens.

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?

Why?

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The consequences would be that breeds of animals that we created merely to sustain our level of consumption would no longer exist, this would not effect the current number of wild breeds of cows, chickens, pigs, horses etc., so I don't see the issue.

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

That is a logical fallacy, Just because we may need supplements doesn't mean we wouldn't be healthy. The supplements would satisfy our biological needs for certain nutrients, so what is the problem?

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

Scanlas The 2nd · 29-07-2012 9:33am

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

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

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?

Do you feel any guilt from eating meat?

Comments