are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?

[frankiej]

I'll be honest, when I die, I want to be buried so that nature can devour me. Not because I want to be laid to rest or anything, but just cuz, well, serve some purpose in death. Feed some worms, you know?

When I die, I want to be sneaked into a meat processing plant and put into burgers and lasagne. We can then have a "Frankie J meat scandal".

[Whateverist]

I'll be honest, when I die, I want to be buried so that nature can devour me. Not because I want to be laid to rest or anything, but just cuz, well, serve some purpose in death. Feed some worms, you know?

When I die, I want to be sneaked into a meat processing plant and put into burgers and lasagne. We can then have a "Frankie J meat scandal".

I don't know, Frankie. I always wanted to be left out for wolves or some such to consume. But I've been told that our bodies are too toxic to be healthy for other animals to eat - except perhaps worms and microbes. Or wait a minute .. is that why you want to go to the meat packers?

[pocaracas]

hmmmmm cow.....

[genkaus]

Eating animals isn't unethical, if we go by the ethics of nature [the only ethics that matter in this case].

That would be committing the fallacy of appealing to nature. Just because nature works in a way where animals eat other animals does not indicate any code of ethics for humans to follow - something exemplified in the fact that the way we eat animals and the way it occurs in nature are completely different. Furthermore, given that humanity in all other aspects has gone beyond what can conceivably be the "ethics of nature", there is no reason to assume that those would be or should be the only ethics to matter in this particular case.

Yes, we can choose to eat either plants or animals but plants are living organisms, too. Just cuz it can't yelp when you pluck an apple doesn't mean it's not made of organic, living materials. You start the argument that eating animals is unethical then you slide down the slippery slope to the point that you eventually reach the point where you'll have to starve to death because life comes from death via consumption.

Not quite - if minimizing pain and death of living organisms was your only consideration then a lacto-fruitarian diet would be the ideal solution. Whatever milk-products you have would be obtained from the animal in exchange for pasture and protection provided and eating of fruit is an important part of the reproduction cycle for plants and it helps in dissemination of seeds. So really, if your ethics are based solely on not causing unnecessary pain and suffering, this diet would fulfill your needs while performing a necessary function for plants and actually reducing the suffering of farm animals.

Noooo, he's just being realistic about what the extents of "humane treatment" are. While they live, treat them well, and when you go to kill them [because they're gonna die anyway eventually], do it quickly and cleanly and don't make them suffer. There's no contradiction here unless you're just trying to split hairs, which is just petty and argumentative for the sake of being petty and argumentative.

That's a poor rationalization. The contradiction here comes from the idea that treating animals well - only to kill them in the end - could somehow be considered humane. When the same standards are applied to humans - it is considered repulsive. If you treat another human as property, irrespective of how humanely you treat them, no one would consider it as something humane. If you kill them, justifying it with the fact that you were kind to them during their life and that they would've died eventually anyway - again, good luck convincing a jury that you were acting humanely. The only scenario where killing someone or something is considered humane is when the continuation of their life results in greater pain and suffering and that is not the case with eating animals. Less cruel than monstrous does not make you humane.

I consider the argument of "being realistic" here as hypocritical. You wouldn't consider "but we need people for work" as a valid justification for slavery, so you shouldn't consider "but we need meat" as a valid justification for slaughtering animals. If you think they deserve humane treatment then act accordingly and set them free to live their lives as naturally as possible. Don't hide behind the excuse that treating them marginally better is somehow humane. Don't pretend that in the end any empathetic or compassionate considerations are superseded by your own desires and a taste for meat. Don't try to ease the guilt by shoddy rationalizations and accept it as the logical consequence of your own conflicted morality.

[Gilgamesh]

You wouldn't consider "but we need people for work" as a valid justification for slavery, so you shouldn't consider "but we need meat" as a valid justification for slaughtering animals.

People are willing to work for money. Animals aren't willing to die for anything, so fuck them.

Don't try to ease the guilt by shoddy rationalizations and accept it as the logical consequence of your own conflicted morality.

What if you don't feel any guilt when you eat meat? Animals are dumb. Kill them so I can consume them.

[genkaus]

People are willing to work for money. Animals aren't willing to die for anything, so fuck them.

The point being that the same way paid labor is an alternative to slavery, vegetarianism is an alternative to eating meat. If you believe in the principle, then put it to practice.

What if you don't feel any guilt when you eat meat? Animals are dumb. Kill them so I can consume them.

Can't argue with that - since I feel the same way.

[Phish]

yes we are

[Gilgamesh]

The point being that the same way paid labor is an alternative to slavery, vegetarianism is an alternative to eating meat. If you believe in the principle, then put it to practice.

I don't believe the comparison is sound.

[Muslim Scholar]

So in doing this you are bringing about harm to you're body of which you have the knowledge and capability to avoid. No more than cutting being ethical should these freely acted diets beconsidered ethical.

So what do you think?

I think an Atheist (naturalist) should not eat at all....................... or be a Cannibal
Yes
If you eat meat or even plants you will be eating your relatives
because according to "Evolution theory" there is no species; all are coming from a single source so they are related,
When you try to eat your niece (a Chicken) think again and save her life hock:

On the other hand, if you allow yourself to eat other (relatives)
Why don't you eat humans as well
there is no difference a chicken is the same as a chic

[Something completely different]

I think an Atheist (naturalist) should not eat at all....................... or be a Cannibal
Yes

all species are cannibals you savage idiot.
there are active and passive cannibals, the passive one only eats members of his own species when confronted with no other food, the active one actively hunts conspecific animals.

If you eat meat or even plants you will be eating your relatives
because according to "Evolution theory" there is no species; all are coming from a single source so they are related,

some biology for the halfwit:

a species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring

One can easily say that all living things are releated, yet to jump to the conclusion that this therefor makes everyone cannibals is like saying that

"Britains must always have offspring with people from outside of britain or else the country would fill up with inbreeds"

Cannibalism is eating someone from the same species - I cannot interbreed with a pig. the posibility of interbreeding is what categorises species. So a pig is not from my species.

When you try to eat your niece (a Chicken) think again and save her life hock:

A chicken cannot interbreed with a human and therefor is from a different species.

On the other hand, if you allow yourself to eat other (relatives)
Why don't you eat humans as well
there is no difference a chicken is the same as a chic

I explained to you how species are categorised.

Now you should learn biology for yourself, idealy in a school, because I am neighter your teacher or mum nore a caretake for retards like you.