Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[jain.rahul]

[/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?

Firstly, I believe in jainism <somewhat>, so eating meat cannot be justified according to my moral grounds.

An Atheist doesn't have any moral basis by which he can define what is good and what is bad objectively as far as I know.
Someone who believes in God, goes on the word of God as to what is Good and what is bad. In Abrahamic religions, I think anything that results in their destination to hell is 'evil' and anything that results in their destination to heaven is 'good'.
Whatever is defined in the religious scriptures as good is good and what is defined as evil is evil.

I think it was Sam Harris, who proposed that the basis of morality for humans should be "worst possible suffering for all conscious beings is bad".
I am no great philosopher <yet>, but if we go by this basis, eating meat is not justified. Because, we know, that an animal has a better developed nervous system than plants. It would suffer more than plants.
Also, much of the meat we eat, does not come from the wilds, they are from animal farm, where plants are first fed to animals and then animals are fed to humans. So the suffering is experienced by both plants and animals.