How do religious people justify raising and slaughtering animals for food?

[vorlon13]

Is dispatching and eating Bambi's mom immoral?

Immoral?  No, she would be delicious.

Bambi's dad has a nice rack . . .

[Whateverist]

It's not in and of itself immoral, no, but it does have consequences for our behavior toward other humans which can't be ignored.  A species which encourages cruelty toward other species ends up promoting that behavior towards its own.  Depending upon what one considers the basis of morals, that may or may not make it a moral concern.  As I believe the purpose of morals is to promote the flourishing of our kind as a social species, this kind of moral overspill is morally significant.  So torturing animals is not immoral as an act in and of itself, but encouraging and promoting animal cruelty does have peri-moral significance.  I don't really care if little Johnny tortures the neighbor's cat, in so far as it is a concern solely about the neighbor's cat;  I care about what it says about little Johnny.  In addition, we may as a species be interested in promoting behaviors which are not in and of themselves moral concerns.  For example, being a civic minded citizen isn't necessarily a moral obligation in and of itself, but we may nonetheless desire to promote it for non-moral reasons.

It goes without saying, as I'm sure you know, that I disagree lol. I think morality extends out to having a certain level of respect for the animals, and even plants, too.

Yeah, so long as morality is our creation why not do a little something for our fellow critters?  Ultimately it is in our best interest to maintain biodiversity.

---

Immoral?  No, she would be delicious.

Bambi's dad has a nice rack . . .

I'll bet his back door is well carpeted as well.

[Angrboda]

It's not in and of itself immoral, no, but it does have consequences for our behavior toward other humans which can't be ignored.  A species which encourages cruelty toward other species ends up promoting that behavior towards its own.  Depending upon what one considers the basis of morals, that may or may not make it a moral concern.  As I believe the purpose of morals is to promote the flourishing of our kind as a social species, this kind of moral overspill is morally significant.  So torturing animals is not immoral as an act in and of itself, but encouraging and promoting animal cruelty does have peri-moral significance.  I don't really care if little Johnny tortures the neighbor's cat, in so far as it is a concern solely about the neighbor's cat;  I care about what it says about little Johnny.  In addition, we may as a species be interested in promoting behaviors which are not in and of themselves moral concerns.  For example, being a civic minded citizen isn't necessarily a moral obligation in and of itself, but we may nonetheless desire to promote it for non-moral reasons.

Soooo...you're not a pet owner then?  I hope...?  😛

I love pets. So tasty!

---

It's not in and of itself immoral, no, but it does have consequences for our behavior toward other humans which can't be ignored.  A species which encourages cruelty toward other species ends up promoting that behavior towards its own.  Depending upon what one considers the basis of morals, that may or may not make it a moral concern.  As I believe the purpose of morals is to promote the flourishing of our kind as a social species, this kind of moral overspill is morally significant.  So torturing animals is not immoral as an act in and of itself, but encouraging and promoting animal cruelty does have peri-moral significance.  I don't really care if little Johnny tortures the neighbor's cat, in so far as it is a concern solely about the neighbor's cat;  I care about what it says about little Johnny.  In addition, we may as a species be interested in promoting behaviors which are not in and of themselves moral concerns.  For example, being a civic minded citizen isn't necessarily a moral obligation in and of itself, but we may nonetheless desire to promote it for non-moral reasons.

It goes without saying, as I'm sure you know, that I disagree lol. I think morality extends out to having a certain level of respect for the animals, and even plants, too.

Do you draw your conclusions based upon your moral intuitions, or based upon an explicit theory of morals? What would you do if the two were to conflict?

[Catholic_Lady]

Both.

And I'm not sure. The 2 have always gone together because those "moral theories" have played a big role in forming my moral intuitions, if that makes sense.

---

I think morality extends out to having a certain level of respect for the animals, and even plants, too.

Even I wouldn't take it that far. Plants are not sentient i.e. they cannot feel.

I agree, but we still shouldn't go around destroying forests, etc, for the hell of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

If in answering the question "Why not" to the above..a person says "it's bad for us" then one is expressing precisely the same sentiment that Jorg did.  It's not about it being bad for the tree.  Or bad in and of itself. Nothing about the destruction of a tree is immoral.  Torture a tree at your leisure - up until the point it becomes "bad for us".

[Succubus]

Dafuq? xtians worship hanged people on a cross/tree/whatever. They hold their alleged savior in a similar light. Why not string up a scapegoat? How far away is that from eating a tasty slice of cow?

As always, science has the answer.

[Godscreated]

I'm an atheist and a non-vegetarian but I can clearly see that raising and slaughtering animals for food is immoral. This is partly because of the appalling conditions under which most of these animals are raised and the fact that we are killing them for our benefit.

Do religious folks agree? If not, how do they ethically defend non-vegetarianism?

Simple God gave man dominion over the animals and after the flood God told man he could eat meat. Put those two things together and you have Christians raising animals to slaughter for food.

If you are so opposed to the idea of man having dominion over the animals and their slaughter for food then why do you eat meat. Also a great many vegetarians eat meat on occasion because they like the taste of meat, they eat a vegetable, nut and fruit diet most of the time for health reasons and I say good for them. I like meat as much as the next meat eater but when late spring and summer rolls around I will eat more veggies because I love fresh veggies.

GC

---

Dafuq? xtians worship hanged people on a cross/tree/whatever. They hold their alleged savior in a similar light. Why not string up a scapegoat? How far away is that from eating a tasty slice of cow?

As always, science has the answer.

 You sir are as low as Min.

GC

[Angrboda]

I'm an atheist and a non-vegetarian but I can clearly see that raising and slaughtering animals for food is immoral. This is partly because of the appalling conditions under which most of these animals are raised and the fact that we are killing them for our benefit.

Do religious folks agree? If not, how do they ethically defend non-vegetarianism?

Simple God gave man dominion over the animals and after the flood God told man he could eat meat. Put those two things together and you have Christians raising animals to slaughter for food.

Actually, I think you just read that in a book somewhere. Why you choose to slavishly follow the examples given in that specific book is the real moral conundrum for you. The answer to which appears to be that "you just do."

On a lighter note, the actual passage in the bible reads as follows:

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [al]sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [an]surface of all the earth, and every tree [ao]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that [aq]moves on the earth [ar]which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Genesis 1:26-31, NASB

It does indeed say that God chose man to rule over them, but that only raises the question of what rulership entails, and specifically whether or not God expects you to be good stewards of this dominion. Are factory farming techniques which induce unnecessary suffering in the animals an example of what God expects of you, or are you simply given free reign to use and abuse these resources as you see fit?

[Godscreated]

Simple God gave man dominion over the animals and after the flood God told man he could eat meat. Put those two things together and you have Christians raising animals to slaughter for food.

Actually, I think you just read that in a book somewhere.  Why you choose to slavishly follow the examples given in that specific book is the real moral conundrum for you.  The answer to which appears to be that "you just do."

On a lighter note, the actual passage in the bible reads as follows:

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [al]sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [an]surface of all the earth, and every tree [ao]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that [aq]moves on the earth [ar]which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Genesis 1:26-31, NASB

It does indeed say that God chose man to rule over them, but that only raises the question of what rulership entails, and specifically whether or not God expects you to be good stewards of this dominion.  Are factory farming techniques which induce unnecessary suffering in the animals an example of what God expects of you, or are you simply given free reign to use and abuse these resources as you see fit?

 I think you ... at least I thought everyone would understand that I support the ethical treatment of animals. So to set things in perspective I do not endorse the unethical treatment of animals, just as I do not support abortions. It's never made sense to me that people who do support the killing of the unborn who do have feeling, would cry so loudly over the mistreatment of animals.

I have no moral conundrum with the Bible, it is now a book that teaches me how to live in a relationship with God and my fellow man. It has been the money grubbing people of this planet who have been exploiting it and the animals and they have nearly destroyed it. People who follow foolish practices by using animal parts to sustain their virility, to halt or at least hinder the aging process. using the skins of exotic animals to make coats so they can impress their peers and all the other foolishness they do, these things are not what God wanted of man when He gave man dominion over the animals, we were to protect them from abuses of all kinds.

GC

[Sal]

Well, since lab-grown meat is on the horizon, we can abolish factory farming altogether some time in the future when it becomes sustainable enough. Will take a few years for it to take off, but it will certainly be more ethical than factory farming animals that suffer needlessly.