(May 21, 2013 at 8:36 am)Tonus Wrote:(May 21, 2013 at 8:20 am)littleendian Wrote: The biological argument hasn't been discussed here, yet, thanks for raising it, although I think it's not going to resolve the issue.
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?
If we talk about moral is then important to understand what is moral and what is immoral.
According to my values moral is anything that help us to get closer to our goal of life (human emancipation) while immoral is what get us far from our goal of life.
In other words killing and eating animals is immoral as the suffering that we are causing to animals will produce a bad karma for us (actions and reactions).
In the scale of right and wrong we can well be excused in taking other lives if we have no choices as vegetarian food is not available but if we have a choice then is wrong.
People may argue that also to cut a plant is causing suffering.
That is also quite true but as i said in previous post............less consciousness and less pain and beside if we eat nothing we die and that is not the objective of life so by being moral i do what cause less problem for everybody and everything else.
