Hello, I am a new member and here is my first reply to the initiate post of this thead:

To say that killing and eating an animal is morally wrong would include the conclusion that free natures animals are on a lower morally level (as a big part of the fauna depends on eating other animals ) and that yourself is on a higher level.

The insult and morally wrongness comes not with the killing and eating but with mankinds arrogant and unique behavior towards the weaker creatures and on top is the major offence to hold them in captivity for their entire life.(Not allowed and not possible under the rules of free nature)

I do kill animals when I'm in the outdoors for the matter of providing food but I do not eat or use any products of captive animals since quite some years (even no milk-or egg-products like chocolate or mayonnaise). It is easy living that way and I will keep it until my very last day.

Also one should be carfull not to ignore the smallest creatures:
To just classify "sentient vertebrate species" as valuable animals could be read as some kind of arrogance (without meaning you as person being arrogant).

So in the big picture your message is really good, just not complete.

steffen

People who eat animals are hungry. That is Prima Facie Right on, hungry momma.

i'm vegan and i disagree with killing and eating animals being morally wrong in any objective way.

throughout history there are probably many times when it was necessary and good.

but i don't live in history, i live now, and with the way things are, who i am, where i am, i choose to not eat animal products. i choose for all the standard reasons. you know the arguments: health, efficiency, sustainability. plus i think that killing is something you should be able to pay anyone else to do for you - i guess its an ethical blind spot. pay a sociopath to do the killing and they'll do it whether its moral or not. people need jobs, killing is a job, so they get stuck doing it to care for themselves/family. either way i don't want to pay for it.

Interesting reasoning you have. There may be an argument to be made in favor of vegitarianism/veganism on the basis of health, efficiency, and/or sustainability, but I would like to hear anyone's argument that killing animals for the purpose of food is wrong in light of the fact that many animals kill and eat each other. If it is just plain naturally wrong to kill another sentient being, then why does nature work that way?

I don't think that animals killing other animals is a good argument for or against us doing it.

By that reasoning:
1) Some animals are vegans.
2) Nature wouldn't allow veganism if it were bad.
=> Veganism is "naturally" good.

I think if you are looking at nature as opposed to culture for a source of what is right or wrong for humans to do you're going to fail because right and wrong are cultural things.

Also to say something is natural you should say it is natural for something. For a dog some things are natural - the things that dogs do. For an ant different things are natural - the things that ants do. For a human what is natural is the things that humans do. Whatever it is that you are accustomed to humans doing is what you think is natural for them to do.

PS I noticed my typo, I meant you shouldn't be able to pay others to kill.

Wrong. The structure of your counterexample does not have the same structure as mine.

My reasoning is
1) Some animals are carnivores and omnivores
2) Nature wouldn't allow the eating of animals if it were bad.
=> the eating of animals is not bad. Note this does not imply that the eating of animals is necessarily good or the right way to be. Only that there is nothing naturally wrong with eating animals.

Actually though, my personal take on morality is that, for anything to be inherently good or bad, then there must be an element of this that transcends the physical universe. Look around at anything physical and see if you can point out "good" or "bad". Certainly you can point to something that is good or bad towards some arbitrarily chosen goal, but why is that goal good or bad? Ultimately, there must be an element that is nonphysical. I have concluded from personal experience that I have a nonphysical experience of positive and negative values, and this experience I call valence. Happiness and suffering both have a physical component, which is what is going on in the brain when I feel these things, and also a nonphysical component, the valence. I have also concluded from this that it is against the preference of nature to unnecessarily kill or aid in the killing of any being that experiences this. Now this is controversial, and also this is the thing that I am less certain about than the rest, but I have concluded for now that only humans have a genuine experience of valence. For all other beings, there is only the physical component. If the only consequence of an action is physical, than it can't be morally wrong. I do, however, believe that we should avoid unnecessarily killing animals because of the affect this has on humans.

I am new to this forum (but am long-active on many others) and 25 pages of thread is little much to swallow at once, however . .

The way I see it, every living creature on earth must consume the life and energy found within another living creature to survive. It is called the circle of life. Animals eat animals, and animals eat plants (which are scientifically proven to be alive and also feel pain and [some studies suggest] fear. And humans eat both. Our body chemistry and structure supports the theory that we are, indeed meant to be omnivores. I know some of you have already argued that their are plenty of suppliments to replace the nutirients we require that are found in meat . . . but that is only thanks to modern science. It is not how we are made, and not how we have lived for centuries.

I think that it's ridiculous to think that we should change who and what we are because we have the option to "not do that" these days. I suppose we should next all food in pill form because the technology is there and we no longer need to take the life of the plant either. . . .

I see absolutely, positively no logical reason to say that eating meat is wrong. To me, the life of the head of lettuce and carrots in your vegetarian meal once had a life of their own as well . . it is only because it is "unintelligent" life that you see it as so " meaningless". You must destroy in order to create and you must consume the life of a once-living 'object' in order to sustain you own life.

Having said so, I am definitely against the killing of an animal for no good reason, like for that of sport, or taxidermy, or black market trade. I am not against fur and leather trade, but I think that it is way too excessive. They don't do it out of necessity anymore . . it just looks good on the red carpet or a hot date. And I disagree with how the meat industry treats the animals, up until their death, and how there is an "overslaughtering being done. Have you seen how much meat is thrown out on a daily basis in restuaraunts and grocery stores and even in people's houses because they have way more than they can sell or eat. It goes te same for fruits and vegetables. Wastefuleness, over- indulgence and sport-killing should anger you . . . . . . not survival and nutrition.

The only reason I personally take vitamins is because I am too poor to have a healthy/balanced diet (lots of ramen and turkey sandwiches) and I'd rather not see my health and vitality slip because of my poverty. If I had a choice though . I would strive to get every vitamins and mineral and enzymes, nutrients etc. by eating the wholesome foods containing those essential items . . . and that includes the consumption of meat.:poke-eye:

@ New Mysterianism #1

I don't know if you actually know how many western countries kills their animals? Least in Denmark we give them a bolt gun in the head, making their death without any suffering.

So in essence you make all the predetor animals out there, criminals? Are we to arrest animals for doing what they have done since dawn of time?

I'd like to challenge the initial statement of the first post. It assumes that causing harm to animals is "bad". Since we define good and bad, this leaves us some wiggle room. Where do we draw the line? Start with killing people is bad. Then from here we can say, well animals can sense emotions too so killing or causing pain to them is, again, bad, based on the stance that hurting anything is bad. Plants are not sentient, and may or may not feel emotions. But one could just as easily draw a line here, saying "Hurting plants is bad because they are life." From here, this leads to hurting any form of life is bad, because it is life. One could even go farther if one wanted to. Weather defending killing or eating animals is wrong or right depends on where we draw the line. There's no simple "wrong" or "right" that is simply the way things are. We define what is wrong and what is right, and since we all have different worldviews, one man could think killing is okay while another could slowly starve to death due to the belief that harming any life is bad. It's not about weather it is simply bad or not, it is about weather we think it is bad or not. So if you think killing or harming animals is wrong, than logically defending killing/harming animals is wrong as well. If you don't, then you don't.

Then let us make it illegal for animals to eat eachother. That way no sentient animal causes harm. Or perhaps or idea of what is "wrong" should be rooted in reality, that we must eat living things to survive?

Few would protect the interests of an herb which is killed to make a spice, is this because herbs don't have a mental desire of physical health? What exactly separates mental desire vs. physical requirement? Things that are alive "struggle" to stay that way, this is a fact of life, I base a defense for killing plants and animals on this struggle, they meet my physical requirement for food.

Scotty,

The original post did not disagree with the concept that "we must eat living things to survive."

However, you shifted to that concept, in spite of the fact that that was not what the o.p. was arguing.

Let's be careful not to slip from one concept to another in the midst of making our case, thus knocking down "A Straw Man." Are you familiar with that fallacy of reasoning?

Did you know that one may live without eating meat? It's been done. I haven't since I was 18. Now I will be 80 in a few months. I eat my meals with great relish and gusto ! I look forward to them, to the subtle tastes, the colorfulness, to the high quality nutrition they provide. My food looks good, tastes good from the word "go" without much cooking. I steam my evening vegetable stew. I eat mainly raw salads with no dressings added. I get as much food organically-grown as I possibly can. The taste is exquisite !!!