(August 2, 2017 at 1:39 am)Astonished Wrote: I hate the vegetarian/vegan moral argument. From what I learned in one of my bio/anthro classes, if our evolutionary ancestors weren't eating the flesh (and brains) of other animals, it doesn't seem like our brains would have enlarged and developed to the point they are at now. We owe the ability to even contemplate these matters rationally on carnivorous diets. I do agree unnecessary harm should be avoided (furs, animal testing that isn't medical) since tormenting them is a sign of psychopathy that can spread to how one treats other humans, but food and essential materials (I think they make glue from horse hooves, or they used to or something) or even donor organs from compatible animals, are easily permissible.
I'm neutral on the vegetarian arguments, even though I'm vegetarian myself. What I can say is that the animals' "opinion" on whether they should be killed and eaten is probably different than ours. I'd ask this though: is there a non-arbitrary distinction between this inter-species view and the killing of other humans on the grounds that they are perceived by us as less important? Cows are much less threatening to my family than are, say, North Koreans. Should I save a cow and eat a gook?
As for vegetarianism: I believe that large-scale farm machinery (threshers) etc. probably kill very many ground-dwelling birds and mammals, and that grazing animals probably kill relatively few. So if I eat a single grazing cow, I may very well be saving many lives. That being said, I'd say that eating grain-eating cattle is a double sin, since animals died to make the grain, and the cattle-feeding is an inefficient use of calories.
