(April 18, 2012 at 2:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It is "perfectly possible" to choose not to eat meat (but only for some), and if you prefer to consider it a moral or ethical decision then you could call it "perfectly logical" if you like, just so long as we're willing to provide that "academic" discussion about our assertions and still, this only applies to some. I'm still waiting to see any elaboration on this unnecessary suffering bit, and how you've avoided it by choosing not to eat meat. I keep seeing it over and over, but the longer this goes on without any elaboration the more I am beginning to suspect that it is a weasel phrase, and that you realize this as easily as I do.
We've moved on from many things, one thing we have not moved on from is the need for sustenance. You're going to cause suffering any way you choose to go about it. What makes the suffering you choose to cause "less immoral" or "less unethical" than the suffering the bacon lover chooses to cause? So far it seems to me to be a matter of assigning positive value judgement to what you choose to eat because you choose to eat it, and negative value judgement to what you choose not to eat because you don't eat it. In other words, I'm not surprised that you don't think the things that you eat make you immoral or unethical by your own standards, neither do I, but If I can be said to be either of these things due to my dietary choices then you are subject to the same criticism, and isn't it possible that we are both equally immoral/moral unethical/ethical even by our own standards (or each others)?
Not sure I am following your question but I'll try this. I agree that I need food to live. I can chose either plants or animals to eat. Animals don't suffer pain, animals like pigs, cows and chickens do. Inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering is not ethical. Humans are just another species of animal, not made in the image of god. I try not to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on other humans, why would I do it to other animals. Meat production entails pain and suffering on a far larger scale than agriculture. So the most ethical position is to eat plants rather than animals.
It is completelt arbitrary to justify the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on other animals just becuase they belong to another species. In human society we reject sexism and rascism because we believe that all races and sexes should have an equal conisderation of their interests. Their interest stems from their ability to feel pan and to suffer. It does not come from a recognition that all people are equal when clearly they are not. People are very different - some cleverer, some stronger etc etc. Just as it is arbitrary to discriminate against the interests of other humans on the basis of skin colour, so too is it arbitrary to discriminate against other animals because they belong to another species.
Some humans are unfortunately born with sever brain damage or becoome chronically senile. They will be less intelligent than many other animals and will not have a higher capacity to suffer. Why then would we be willing to subject anumals to pain and suffering and not those unfortunate humans with greatly reduced capacities?
I accept that fully functioning humans do have a higher capacity to suffer than other animals. On this basis I would not hesiate to save the life of a human over a dog. What I don;t see the logic in is why all animals capable of feeling pain and suffering have their interests largely ignored.
If I've missed the point I'm sure you'll let me know.
I also wanted to say that you seem like a good guy, I hope I haven't come across as testy - I apologise if I have. I am happy to hear your views and will give them thought and trust you will reciprocate.
