Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Jinkies]

Yes, so awesome everyone on this forum has the luxury to choose a vegan lifestyle. The problem is, we are but a small sample of the world. I think you miss my point here. I question how veganism could possibly be the absolute moral action if it is a result of luxury. What does this mean for people who do not have this luxury? Are you going to argue that it's an exception for them?

You are vastly overestimating the "luxury" of veganism. The reason it's difficult for anyone to be vegan right now is that we've had a system in place for ages that doesn't value non-human animal life. An absolutely ridiculous amount of resources go toward producing animals for people to eat. It's estimated that 50 billion animals are killed each year for food. That's the reason you consider veganism a luxury. It's not because veganism is difficult for humans. It's because our resources are being used elsewhere.

This will lead to the exact same type of argument for taking another's life in self defense. If taking another person's life goes against the absolute moral, then it is wrong no matter what. Or else, it wouldn't be "absolute" correct? This is why I have a problem with us attempting to find an absolute moral truth as if it even exists.

Why are you discussing objective morality? I don't believe in "absolute" truths, but that does not mean we can't find a good set of guidelines that contains rules of what to do and what not to do. So you have a problem attempting to find absolute moral truth. Does this mean that you're okay with pedophiles doing whatever they want, or do you think we should still attempt to find some idea of morality to enforce?

Take a step outside for a second, do you realize we are having a debate about morals over food?

This is a nonsensical question. This is like having a discussion of pedophilia or rape and saying "we're just talking about sex!" Yeah, once you ignore all of the negative aspects people are actually objecting to and reduce it to a single word, it certainly doesn't sound as bad. If we were talking murdering humans for food, I don't think you'd make this same ridiculous comment.

Why do we separate ourselves from the animals because of our "intelligence"? Why do we attempt to attribute human pain and suffering onto animals like cows and chickens? I understand they feel pain, but as I've said, not all farms abuse them. I personally protest those companies.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Spider-Man, but it has a pretty choice quote: "With great power comes great responsibility." Humans have a reasonable capacity for intelligent thought, so we should use it to determine if what we want to do is right or wrong. If you have a decent argument and come to a different conclusion, that's fine. If you have a terrible argument and come to a different conclusion, that's also fine. Most beliefs are based on terrible arguments anyway.

I'm not interested in comparing how human pain differs from cow and chicken pain. In my view, that is not relevant to why it is wrong to own, hurt, or kill them. I don't only place value on beings that possess human qualities. I think cow qualities are good enough.

As for your use of the word abuse, my definition would contain killing another being for its flesh. If yours doesn't, that's okay. Regardless, I think you're overestimating the amount of animals that aren't raised in terrible conditions. Over 99% of the livestock killed in the US are raised in factory farms. I'm not familiar with other countries, but the numbers should be similar in any developed country.

And let's not play semantic games. You know what I mean when I say "humane". Otherwise, let me pull the definition of ethics:

1. a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

Where in there does it say anything about consuming meat? 

Where in there does it say anything about raping children? Where does it say anything about murder? Where does it say anything about the definition of "humane?" Your question is nonsensical. Why would the definition of ethics contain something about consuming meat?

Also, my point was that killing beings for their flesh is, by definition, not humane. That's not judging the act, only the word used to describe it. I don't feel a need to describe the empire state building as a short horse, since those are not the appropriate words to describe it. In the same vein, humane is not the right word to describe killing beings for their flesh. That's not an argument against the act, but against incredibly poor word usage.

So let me ask you... How consistent are you about treating animals humanely? Do you consciously try and avoid killing insects? Are they not deserving of the same sympathy? What about to your fellow human-beings? Do you always avoid purchasing from big businesses in order to help out the local market?

I try to avoid ending intelligent life and causing harm where possible and practical. I obviously live in a society where my views are not shared by many, so it is impossible for me to avoid everything. The problem is not with the people who dislike sweatshops and other problematic industries, though. It is with the people who run them.

Do you think asking me, a Korean, to quit eating meat is ethical? The Korean culture regards meat consumption as a privilege. Our food is rich with meat dishes. We have a seaweed and beef soup dish that we eat on our birthdays. Also, sticking to the roots, we don't waste the excess animal parts. Where do you think all this "exotic" food comes from? Down to the tongue. Is it ethical for you to ask me to give up what is literally a part of my culture? Do you know what my father would say to me if I became a vegan? He'd think that I'm very spoiled and ungrateful because when he was my age, meat was very hard to come by. 

Personally, yes. If I had control, killing intelligent beings for their flesh would be illegal everywhere. I do not have control, though, so you're able to make your own decisions. This is like asking me, as an ethical non-pedophile, whether I think asking you to stop raping children is ethical. Of course I do.

I don't care what value you place on culture or what weight you give to your father's opinion of you. If you were raping children fortnightly, and your culture and father approved completely, I'd still consider it ethical to make you stop. I think people should approach the issue of morality as it relates to killing other beings to eat them with logic and reason, though they will not necessarily reach the same conclusions as me. Culture and personal opinions are meaningless to me, since they offer no argument as to why something is right or wrong.

Alien's Day Out is literally the only blog I follow, and it just happens to be a vegan blog from someone in Korea. It's good stuff if anyone is interested.

At the expense of sounding elitist, I do not regard animals that are not even capable of self-recognition the same as I regard those that do. Hence, you'll never catch me eating primates (a lot are capable of recognizing themselves in a mirror). At the same time, I won't knowingly consume meat that has come from a farm like the ones KFC employs where chickens are so big, their legs break.

I'm not sure why self-recognition is important to you. It's one of those arguments that seems to be used to separate humans from non-humans, but I've never seen a reason as to why it's a worthwhile point to focus on. Could you let me know why you feel self-recognition is necessary for a life to have value? It seems like an incredibly arbitrary thing to focus on when there are so many more aspects of intelligence that are shared by humans and non-human animals. It's like people examined humans and non-humans to find a difference, found one thing where they saw little overlap, and said, "this is the thing that's important!"

Still, self-recognition (which I'm assuming is the mirror test?) as humans view it is a very human-centric thing. The idea itself implies that non-humans should have any reason to share this particular human trait. There are plenty of solid criticisms of the mirror test (not by vegans, but people interested in intellectual honesty), some of which are listed on Wikipedia.

Another question... Do you think an animal suffers if it is killed instantly?

I'm against murdering humans even if you kill them instantly. My arguments for veganism are not purely based on suffering. I have arguments against suffering, but I also have arguments against killing. They're very similar to the arguments you have against doing those things to humans, I just substitute "human" with "intelligent being." I'm omitting the next chunk you wrote since it should be clear now that I'm against all those things.

One last question for you... Do you think walking upright is immoral? What's your moral justification for it? What if walking upright offends other animals? Can you prove to me that they aren't offended? I mean, we are the only animals that walk upright. The rest of the animal kingdom either fly, swim, or walk low to the ground. What is the justification for us to walk upright like we're high and mighty?  

That question does sound rather silly doesn't it? I have to say, calling people that consume meat "immoral" is rather silly to me. Questioning morality about meat consumption is pretty silly I think. 

Wow, that is completely nonsensical. I feel the need to throw out that Billy Madison quote here.

Show me a victim of walking upright. I could give a shit about offense.

I know you don't think murdering and eating a human is on the same level as offending a human. Here, though, you're comparing killing a being for its flesh with offending a being. Why would you think this comparison is anything less than absolutely terrible?

I'm still interested in hearing what makes a life have value for you, unless your self-awareness comment earlier was your argument. I imagine it's not, though.