Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[mediamogul]

[/b]Richard Dawkins can see no good moral reason for eating meat. He sees it as being akin to sexism or racism.

It seems that evolution tells us that we are nothing more than another animal so it's easy to see where Dawkins is coming from.

I suppose that you need to have a moral position that causing unnecessary pain and suffering is wrong.

Do you agree with Dawkins that on moral grounds, eating meat cannot be justified?

I am a vegetarian an believe that the moral line is drawn at sentience (consciousness and the ability to suffer). All beings that have sentience are entitled to certain rights and ethical treatment. To discriminate purely on the basis of the fact the we are humans and they are not is akin to speciesm or the unfounded favoring of one species over another due to prejudice for the species that we happen to belong to. We understand these concepts well in the cases of our pets and preferred creatures, usually drawn along social lines, but struggle with the animals we classically view as "food". I do not eat any animal that we have reason to believe is sentient.

I also must say that it's funny to hear otherwise rational folks break out the lame arguments for this one. Especially when they would never accept the same type of arguments from a person arguing religion or some other belief based upon tradition, taste, or prejudice.

The classics are 1) Because that is the natural order of things 2) Because that's what people have always done 3) Because morality is relative and I choose to eat meat because there is no right or wrong 4) Because it tastes good and wouldn't taste good if it weren't "meant" to be eaten.

The answers are simple: 1) Is-Ought gap. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it ought to be that way. Our biology is based on survival not ethics and thus is amoral and can't be used as a basis for what we are "meant" to eat. 2) Argument from tradition obvious nonsense 3) But you wouldn't eat a human baby why? If it's relative you could never say someone was wrong for doing so? If we couldn't eat a baby why not? Moral relativism is bankrupt and the refuge of many armchair philosophers who can't put forth a compelling moral theory. 4) That one is obviously stupid and needs no response.