?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Wise Tits [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Wise Tits

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Meat-a-t.... Carnivores. [Aug. 29th, 2008|10:12 am]
Wise Tits

wise_tits

[hahahasyyke]
A friend of mine is going to be vegetarian for 3 months, obviously for health and not moral reasons, and it brings me to my inner debate of whether meat eating is "moral" or not.

I will start this by saying that I did go vegetarian for a short period of time, after watching a movie that showed exactly what goes on in the processing of our meaty products. When I did this, it was more out of disgust by the treatment of the animals before they're turned into food, and also for health reasons not related to weight. Anyway...

Our modern world is somewhat characterized now by the "Green Movement." It pretty much deals with the notion that humanity's actions are harmful to the Ecosphere that we're part of, and that the Ecosphere is more important that humanity's desires. One of the ideas that belongs to this movement is that eating meat is morally unjustified, and that vegetarianism/veganism is a life style that us humans should follow in order to live with a clean conscience. I feel the need to challenge that, and point out why I'd say meat-eating is morally justified.

First of all, there's the subject of natural order. A lot of animals consume other animals - thusly, they eat meat. They also benefit from it, and they don't think twice about it. Therefore, the act of meat-eating is part of the natural order. A lot of people on the subject of eating meat don't denounce animals for eating meat, yet they'll complain about humans consuming animals. Wouldn't that be a slightly hypocritical position?

Then these reasons seem to come up: 1- Humans have a moral capacity, and animals don't. Since eating meat is immoral, because it causes suffering, only humans have a moral obligation to stop. 2- The way that humans collect meat for eating, factory farming, is an inhumane industry that performs numerous acts of animal abuse.

Okay, so the first argument has two assumptions: Something that has no moral capacity can be excused for an immoral act, and that the act of causing suffering is inexcusable and immoral. First one can be dismissed since a child with no understanding of the law can steal a candy bar from the store and it will still be wrong, despite that the child doesn't have an understanding of right and wrong in that area at that point. The second point is refuted since the suffering is part of the natural order. Since the idea of stopping meat-eating is from the notion of preserving and following natural order, the position proves to be sort of hypocritical, right?

And for the second argument - I won't dispute this, obviously. Many groups in factory farming are responsible for foul treatment. This idea is to raise the fattest creatures rather than the healthiest. However, the fact that the means of obtaining meat for human consumption is flawed doesn't make it immoral itself. It simply means our obligation is not to force the world into a vegetarian lifestyle, but rather to correct the factory farming system through a series of laws that would reduce abuse and benefit the consumer, producer, and investor through better quality meat that comes from healthier animals, which would still have plenty of substance for consumption.

And, having addressed those arguments...
As mentioned earlier it is psychological, and I know it now to be the result of popular entertainment, surprisingly enough. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Pluto, Care Bears, Dark-Wing Duck... The list of cartoon characters who are animals goes on and on. Fact is, many of them have human appearance and personality, and are meant to embody the more positive aspects of OUR species. We're raised with those characters as little kids (when we're most influenced). This is installed in our heads at a young age, and then we grow up having an unnecessary sympathy toward furry non-humans, Combined with the foolish need to start revolutions whenever and wherever, groups like PETA (which incidentally is responsible for animal abuse itself) and the Animal Liberation Front (responsible for numerous acts of vandalism and terrorism towards scientific institutions) form and people start marching on streets like Nazis, even though they label animal shelters and disease research centers as Nazis.

It's all very backwards to me.
LinkReply

Comments:
From: d_h_belmont
2008-09-02 08:50 am (UTC)

PETA fun fact

PETA is opposed to animals being used by humans in any capacity, not even as pets. HOWEVER one of their leading members, I forget the name, is a diabetic. The insulin she needs to survive comes from animals. Her justification is that since she is fighting FOR them, she can USE them.

Hypocrites.
(Reply) (Thread)