RE: are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?
May 22, 2013 at 8:05 pm
(This post was last modified: May 22, 2013 at 8:17 pm by bennyboy.)
(May 21, 2013 at 12:05 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Um, go to a mirror and smile. See those pointy teeth on your upper and lower jaws. Those are not for hunting broccoli. In fact, one of the surest signs of human evolution is the reduction in tooth size over several million years.Maybe, but do human ancestors have bigger, pointier canines or vice versa? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm guessing our ancestors were more geared toward meat-tearing than we are. There's nothing wrong with having vestigial traits that aren't really required, but having a tailbone doesn't mean we should all be climbing trees.
The anger and lust responses, which for the most part do nothing at all for members of a civilized society, are also evolved. We not only demonize but also strongly legislate against acts based on perfectly natural drives. Why? Because with our minds, we've decided that they are unpleasant acts, and we're not willing to tolerate them anymore, without regard to whether they are natural (read: evolved) or not.
I'd say morality is really just a willingness to act on some vision of a better world. WHAT world vision that is depends on the arbitrary whims of individuals-- but I think a world in which we don't deliberately cause suffering in other animals is certainly a viable one.
(May 21, 2013 at 8:36 am)Tonus Wrote: Doesn't it really come down to one thing? That being whether or not we consider it moral (or right, or just, or whichever word fits) to kill an animal for food. Or perhaps the question is whether we place non-human animals on the same "moral plane" as humans. I've followed the discussion with interest, but I think every other point flows from that one. Am I incorrect to simplify it to this degree?I think you could also add purely pragmatic considerations of calories/acre, distributing food to hungry humans in poor countries, etc. Specifically, it takes a lot of vegetation to make a relatively small amount of meat.
I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but has anyone mentioned the collateral loss of life of rodents, birds, etc. in the modern farming practices? I mean, you take a giant mower across a hundred acres of field, and you are likely to kill quite a lot of critters. I wonder if eating a cow would have a NET loss of life, or possibly save a lot of living things from getting mulched?
