are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?

[ideologue08]

Actually a rather recent phenomena and only in the industrialized world. Not all that long ago slaughtering animals was a family affair conducted right on the farm. You need a little perspective on history.

Right, but I'm talking about today. I'm not going to argue with someone who raises, slaughters and guts his own dinner, they are obviously okay with what is happening and what it entails. However I have the sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of people would find the things that are going on in the factory farms and mass-slaughterhouses of today quite repulsive indeed. That is why the process is so well hidden and only people who can't get any other job would do this work.

That's just not true, if you've been to the developing world, you'd know that they sacrifice and kill animals pretty much out in the open. In fact, hunting foxes used to be legal recently here in Britain, and if I'm not mistaken, people still go hunting in the United States.

[Minimalist]

I don't. The only reason these animals are born and raised is as agricultural products. No one is kidnapping them off the open range to make a filet mignon.

[ideologue08]

No, vegetarians are not more ethical. And if they're Atheist well... can't get much more arbitrary than that.

How do you mean? The only reasons for vegetarianism and veganism should be theistic?

Yes. What difference does it make to an Atheist whether or not they kill and eat animals? If they don't like the taste, that's probably the only logical explanation. Other than that it's arbitrary.

[littleendian]

An argument that would "tickle my convictions", if you will, would be one that explains why I should put a negative value on eating meat, morally or ethically.

Would you put a negative moral value on eating another human without distress? If yes, then you have to look at the reason for this: If you (like me) would not eat another human being regardless of whether they are mentally retarded or not, then placing this negative moral value on the act has obviously nothing to do with intelligence. Now all that remains is an arbitrary and for me superstitious distinction that we draw between our own species and other species. We used to draw this line between human races, whites and blacks, between men and women, all with terrible consequences and practices condemed today. The logical next step is to extend this line to where there is actually an objective grounding in reality for it: Whether you can feel pain or not. How can I ask for a relatively pain-free life, and all of us do, and not award this to others who have the same interest?

---

How do you mean? The only reasons for vegetarianism and veganism should be theistic?

Yes. What difference does it make to an Atheist whether or not they kill and eat animals? If they don't like the taste, that's probably the only logical explanation. Other than that it's arbitrary.

"Because I can" is a really weak basis for morality, and I hope that most Atheists wouldn't subscribe to it, after all it would imply that murder or rape are okay as long as they get away with it. There is a logic to human behaviour and -- yes -- also to human emotions that goes much deeper than conscious reasoning.

[ideologue08]

An argument that would "tickle my convictions", if you will, would be one that explains why I should put a negative value on eating meat, morally or ethically.

Would you put a negative moral value on eating another human without distress? If yes, then you have to look at the reason for this: If you (like me) would not eat another human being regardless of whether they are mentally retarded or not, then placing this negative moral value on the act has obviously nothing to do with intelligence. Now all that remains is an arbitrary and for me superstitious distinction that we draw between our own species and other species. We used to draw this line between human races, whites and blacks, between men and women, all with terrible consequences and practices condemed today. The logical next step is to extend this line to where there is actually an objective grounding in reality for it: Whether you can feel pain or not. How can I ask for a relatively pain-free life, and all of us do, and not award this to others who have the same interest?

---

Yes. What difference does it make to an Atheist whether or not they kill and eat animals? If they don't like the taste, that's probably the only logical explanation. Other than that it's arbitrary.

"Because I can" is a really weak basis for morality, and I hope that most Atheists wouldn't subscribe to it, after all it would imply that murder or rape are okay as long as they get away with it. There is a logic to human behaviour and -- yes -- also to human emotions that goes much deeper than conscious reasoning.

Well, yes, logically speaking murder or rape are both fine if you can get away with it and there is no retaliation.

[NoraBrimstone]

How do you mean? The only reasons for vegetarianism and veganism should be theistic?

Yes. What difference does it make to an Atheist whether or not they kill and eat animals? If they don't like the taste, that's probably the only logical explanation. Other than that it's arbitrary.

Why would a theist not want to eat the animals that god put on Earth for us to eat, and made so tasty in the process?

Maybe some atheists are animal lovers or health freaks, or are just grossed out by the thought of eating animals? Or any of the other million reasons people have for choosing not to eat meat?

Wtf does god have to do with it?

---

Well, yes, logically speaking murder or rape are both fine if you can get away with it and there is no retaliation.

You are so lacking in morals that the only reason you aren't running around harming others is because you're worried about getting caught? You know that means you're a Sociopath, right?

[ideologue08]

Yes. What difference does it make to an Atheist whether or not they kill and eat animals? If they don't like the taste, that's probably the only logical explanation. Other than that it's arbitrary.

Why would a theist not want to eat the animals that god put on Earth for us to eat, and made so tasty in the process?

Maybe some atheists are animal lovers or health freaks, or are just grossed out by the thought of eating animals? Or any of the other million reasons people have for choosing not to eat meat?

Wtf does god have to do with it?

If someone believes that their god told them not to eat animals, that's a logical explanation to abstain. But for an Atheist to say it's not moral or correct to eat animals, why the fuck do they think that? What difference does it make? I can't see the logic because it's not there.

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you put a negative moral value on eating another human without distress?

I place a negative value on eating humans regardless, just not a moral one. It's just not my bag, it wouldn't matter to me how ethically raised or farmed they were. If somebody said hey "Jimmy's for dinner" I;d say, "thank's, I'll pass." It's not really an issue of ethics or morality, it never raises to that level.

I suppose that we could concoct some soylent green scenario of the future to test the conjecture - but beyond that sort of example I don't know how it is supposed to apply?

If yes, then you have to look at the reason for this: If you (like me) would not eat another human being regardless of whether they are mentally retarded or not,

I doubt they're palatable - do you imagine that the person being mentally retarded would alleviate that? Like, say, the way that veal alleviates the toughness that some dislike in beef? Veal, another one of those things I pass on at the dinner table.

then placing this negative moral value on the act has obviously nothing to do with intelligence. Now all that remains is an arbitrary and for me superstitious distinction that we draw between our own species and other species.

Nothing superstitious or moral about my preferring beef to long-pig. It's a matter of taste. Perhaps this particular line of thought would have been best foisted upon a cannibal - or someone who thinks that cannibalism in any form for any reason would be an absolute no-no? You see, I;m of the opinion that people have to handle the whole eating bit - before they have time to moralize..anything.

We used to draw this line between human races, whites and blacks, between men and women, all with terrible consequences and practices condemned today. The logical next step is to extend this line to where there is actually an objective grounding in reality for it: Whether you can feel pain or not. How can I ask for a relatively pain-free life, and all of us do, and not award this to others who have the same interest?

Okay, well, if drawing any of those lines might make people taste better, please inform me - because until then, we're talking non-overlapping magisteria.

[ideologue08]

You are so lacking in morals that the only reason you aren't running around harming others is because you're worried about getting caught? You know that means you're a Sociopath, right?

No, I don't base my morality on logic, which is precisely why I wouldn't murder or rape anyone, even if I had the chance to get away with it scot-free. On the other hand, the more rational option would be to actually kill and rape if there's little to no retaliation, which probably explains why the Soviet Atheists raped their way through Eastern Europe to Germany. They probably committed more war crimes than Germany in all honesty, it's at least a close call. The difference is that the Soviets could not get punished for it. Even when the Germans sent a letter to Roosevelt demanding an investigation into Soviet massacres and mass rapes, he turned a blind eye. Why do you think what the Soviets did wasn't rational? It was. But was it moral, no it wasn't. Using Child soldiers in Africa is rational, yes, but not moral. And so is using rape as a weapon of war.

[NoraBrimstone]

If someone believes that their god told them not to eat animals, that's a logical explanation to abstain. But for an Atheist to say it's not moral or correct to eat animals, why the fuck do they think that? What difference does it make? I can't see the logic because it's not there.

You see, most people have a sense of morality. Morality can vary from person to person on subjects like this one.

Why might some feel it's immoral to eat animals? That probably depends on their life experiences and their conscience.