Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

I just ate a rare slab of angus. I don't think it's immoral to eat meat. Is a lion considered immoral for eating gazelles? It's just life. I understand some people might find it troubling to kill a living thing just to dine upon it's flesh. I'm not one of those people, personally.

Are you saying we should look to other animals for moral inspiration? Surely the point is that we are rational, we can make ethical decisions. Gerbils sometimes eat their babies, should we follow suit.

---

[/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.


Good comments. I agree totally. I think you make a mistake to think that atheists copme to atheism through rational thought. Just looking at some of the inane comments here makes you wonder what the worth is of the atheists movement. It seems to attract a lot of people who just don't like rules and have little to say.

---

The problem is that this thing the 'righteous' like to call "Morality" is an entirely subjective thing. While one person weeps for the poor mistreated cows, another simply shrugs and cracks open the A1 Sauce.

While religious teachings may be one of the societal pressures that inform a person's personal morality, it is not their source...like these... theists...are hoping to prove.

I think this is good evidence for the influence of Christianity over western values. A hang over from God giving man dominion over the animals. Your comments haven't really engaged the topic and the implications of evolution for ethical choices. I think though, this is not really your thing.

---

[/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?

If Dawkins has a problem with hurting things that can feel pain, there is nothing wrong with that morally, ethically, or rationally.. However, morality is rather relative. I for one will eat meat, but I also do not like animals having to suffer.. The problem with the food chain is that much of life must murder itself in-order to survive and reproduce. So no matter what Dawkins says, he's going to have to technically kill something to survive.. That is a natural consequence of life.

And we are animals indeed, but animals capable of higher cognitive thought.. We are amazing animals, but it does come with a price.

I think you have missed the point. Sure, we may kill something. Step on a bug etc. the point is, should we inflict UNNECESSRY pain and suffering when we can decide not to.