Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Anomalocaris]

[/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?

Absolutely not, at the most fundamental level.

Morality is an heuristic construct justified solely based on its value in enhancing long survival of human propsects of communities by minimize unproductive friction in the community. To elevating aspects of heuristic to a fundamental principle governing aspects not really related to survival of humanity is to defeat the purpose of morality.

So there is no such thing as an immoral act towards any other creature? If what you suggest is true, why do many millions see it as a moral issue?

An act towards another creature is immoral if it is accepted to be tangibly harmful to the human society, directly, or indirectly.

For example, fornicating with a different species might be heuristically immoral because it may provide an otherwise non-existing bridge for pathogens hitherto specific to the other species to make the jump to humans, yet it seem to provide little offsetting benefits.

Millions see meat eating as an moral issue because the way morality has been shabbily sold to them in our society. Instead of the clear understanding that morality exist to benefit human community, it was sold to them as some overriding fundamental principle that exist independent of any fundamental purpose it was designed to address, sort of like a law of physics. Basically, morality has been oversold in order to pursuade people to buy it.

So now many of the more impressionable buyers try to apply morality as it has been advertised, not as it actually is.

---

Many millions have seen images of a risen christ as well......many millions have leveraged magic to cure disease, and many millions eat meat.

There's a name for the argument you've just made. It definitely doesn't lend any credibility to the cause.

Ok. Prove morality is an heuristic construct justified solely based on its value in enhancing long survival of human propsects of communities by minimize unproductive friction in the community. You can't. I didn't claim it lent credibility to the cause, just highlighted that there are lots of differing opinions on what constitutes morality.

It is the occum's razor explanation of the widespread presence of various versions of morality in societies that survived, and for high degree of presence of prohibitions against actions that can be shown by later science to be harmful to survival of the community in its environment.