Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

I like meat and am an omnivore so so I will still eat meat. Humans have eaten meat for thousands of years and there is nothing inherently wrong with this base case. There may be something ethically wrong in some methods of obtaining meat, but the question was is there something wrong with eating of the meat substance in the first place. No, there is not.

Now there are certain animals I would never eat: Humans, Dogs, Cats, Monkeys, Dolphins, Apes, Close Ancestors, unless it was absolutely necessary because of the fact that most of these animals display more social skills and intelligence than average and therefore I consider them kin and also have a certain attachment.

Yes. I understand you like bacon. I did once. Perhaps this is an indication that self interest overrides a proper consideration of the ethics of whatyou do?

So you do draw the line at an animal's intelligence and social skills. This is arbitrary. Just how unintelligent does an animal have to be to fall foul of your positions, how lacking in social skills. By your reasoning, you would be quite justified in causing pain and unnecessary suffering on a chronically senile person, someone with a severe mental disorder, maybe even a new born baby. This arbitrary view of the world in times past enabled people to treat other people differently because of other trivial and artificial differences like colour of skin or sex. I argue that what really gives an animal (us included) the 'right' to have our interests considered, is our capacity to feel pain and to suffer. This is not to say the outcomes of those considerations will not vary, but the ethics of equal consideration are as Ricahrd Dawkins agrees, very logical.

---

[quote='Scabby Joe' pid='273363' dateline='1334606399']

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

Nope. I love eating meat. Have it all the time. Also I don't think there is any needless pain and suffering. They're killed almost instantly. In the wild, they'd almost always suffer a brutal and painful death, a hard life from birth to death. In fact it happens to pretty much every wild animal on the planet. Farm animals always have food readily available, no predators and the killing is quick. Besides, with our ever growing population and very much limited resources, you can't be picky.

If youlook into the practices of factory farming, some ocvered in the discussions here, you will see that there isa wealth of evidence that there is indeed a huge amount of pain and suffering involved. The question is then how do you justify it with your ethical/moral worldview?

---

I always say that if animals don't want to be eaten, they should stop tasting so good.

Sounds like your shiftinng moral responsibility threre

---

I just like meat. I'll stop eating it when everyone else does.

People used to like keeping slaves too. Your sentiment about what everyone else does is exactly what Richard Dawkins identifies as the reason why the logically consistent ethical stance is not more widely held. We need to build a critical mass, just like that which overcame slavery and sexism

---

If the animal isn't intelligent enough to be consciously aware of its existence then what difference does it make? It doesn't even know its alive.

Because it can feel and can suffer. SOme humans are not aware of their own existence, can we treat them as we choose?

---

So the answer is that you know the argument is illogical but don't care and you are going to continue with the unfounded practices anyway?

Sounds like another system of thought I know.

*cough*Christianity*cough*

How is eating meat an unfounded practice?? The Irony of your statement here is precious to say the least... There was nothing illogical about the answer given. And as said before, you have to end a life to continue to have a life. Welcome to reality! You just feel better killing plants because they can't cry or scream when you kill them, and that is perfectly ok. However, to use it as an argument for the preaching of vegetarianism borders the line of religious radicalism since it often uses bullshit dogma about claiming people eating meat are some how unethical, or engaging in "unfounded practices"... Sorry, but the bullshit trains stops where you kill another living thing just so you can have another breath.

We feel pain and suffer. We don't like it but sometimes it is necessary. Animals feel pain and suffer and so their interests should be taken into account just like ours. Just like it is unethical to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on other humans, so to on animals. That is what I take to be the (ethically) unfounded practice.

The paralells with Christian dogma are clear to me. Fist, look at the posts. You will see many completely avoid the argument on the basis that meat tastes good. The arguement going that if the meat tastes good it must be right. Christain version - if god tells you to do something (murder little children) do it becuase it must be right. In each case there is no consideration of the ethics or morality involved.

As we animals have a shared capacity to feel pain and suffering we should have equal considertion of our interests. It is as arbitrary to discriminate on the grounds of species as on the basis of skin colour. Where can such a notion come from that we are special, ahh- Christain theology. We are the Adams and Eves and we can do what we want to the animals, they were created for us after all.

We of course do live in the real world and do understand that we cannot exist without a degree of suffering. The whole point of this post is whether we should avoid UNNECESSARY pain and suffering. Just because there is some suffering does not mean we have no further ethical responsibility to minimise it.