(October 6, 2012 at 10:00 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I don't think so. I'm not sure how that then makes it purely subjective. Nor am I now sure why it matters if it is subjective. If you agree upon a certain standard (such as "do unto others as you would them do unto you") then under that standard you can decide upon moral obligations that are consistent with that standard. Maybe morality is ultimately subjective (a matter I haven't really studied yet). What matters here however is if whether one is acting consistently with the standard. Of course, you might say that acting consistently with a standard is in itself a subjective value (if all moral values are subjective).
If we can both agree upon a certain basic moral standard and that acting consistently with that standard is good, then we can decide if whether killing animals for eating is good or bad.
My point is that I haven't really seen in this thread a justification for killing animals that is consistent with the value "of do unto others etc." which is a value almost all the atheists I've met affirm.
(I wrote the above while eating a roast beef sandwich.)
Even that sounds good right now. (Gotta get up and eat something.) I'm down with the golden rule but I'm not sure what should count for the "others" we propose to treat as we would be treated. My thought would be, these others should be capable of making the same determination toward me .. even if they don't. So cows, sheep and pigs don't seem to qualify. In regard to them, they are subject to my determination of what is best all things considered .. but not entitled to the consideration I would ask for myself from another creature capable of the same decision.