Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

  • Thread starter physicskid
  • Start date

Should we eat meat?

  • Yes

    Votes: 233 68.5%
  • No

    Votes: 107 31.5%

  • Total voters
    340
  • #1,251
(been away for a week and putting in a very brief appearence for now.)

Kerrie said:
Your key word here is "can", but extra care needs to go into making sure a woman's diet has enough protein and iron, which are easily found in fish and chicken. In my opinion, a woman's vegetarian diet needs to come second to the development and care of her baby.
it is precisely for the health benefits to the mother and the baby that people adopt veg diets (just as my wife did!)

all this morality stuff aside, it is important to understand that

not only can one maintain weight on a veg diet
not only can one get enough protein on a veg diet
not only can one get enough iron on a veg diet

but that it is a good idea to do these things through a veg diet, because

one doesn't get the other not so nice 'goodies' that come from animal based eating - and neither does one's baby.

however, if one wants the technical reasons and guidance for eating veg, it is considered a good idea to go to a veg physician rather than a non-veg one, because the latter will probably not understand the point of going veg too well.


plusaf said:
nothing about meat putrefying or hanging around to kill you. balanced diet, fiber and meat (and other stuff, too...) healthy.
a balanced diet has nothing to do with meat. if it did,

1) all us veg folks would become unhealthy or would need to supplement like crazy and then become unhealthy.
2) the meaters wouldn't be into supplements and wouldn't become unhealthy (eg heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, arthritis, excema etc etc)

the meat apparently hangs around for 5 days whereas as the veg stuff gets through in 1 day. the meat won't kill you in the time it hangs around. however, in the little time it does hang around, it is believed that it does do some pollutive damage, so perhaps it does kill you a little bit LOL.

anyway, exactly what was your concern about the veg stuff passing through in 1 day - you said it would leave skid marks. did i answer that matter sufficiently?


marley.wannabee said:
thanks for that post!!! ... but if i CAN find a better... more healthy diet i will use it... and if not eating meat is actually healthier and will let me keep every ounce of muscle i have and promote strong core strength growth and a possible +5-10 lbs of solid muscle mass... i'm in. I'll try it to see how i feel. But i'll gratefully check that reference before i do.
you are very welcome!

some may notice some mass loss initially - that is not uncommon, but it comes back. the best thing to do is talk to people who have done it and are doing it. as i suggested to kerrie previously in this post, there is little point in getting veg info from a person who does the non-veg thing because tradition takes a long time to die.

for instance, in body-building, mike mentzer (who wasn't veg, btw) says in his book that he received a lot of flak when he advocated a lower protein/higher carb because the battlecry was "meat for strength" in his time. however, when in 1978, he became the first mr. universe to win with a perfect 300 pt score, people had to reconsider to some extent.

i've heard very good things about B.Brazier. he seems to be a very together person and his website has excellent info with questions and answers too.

anyway, good luck with your training! what's your sport, btw?
 
Last edited:
  • #1,252
30
0
Kerrie said:
i think the answer should be a "yes one should eat meat" in a situation such as a woman who becomes pregnant and has been a vegetarian for some time. i know of a pregnant woman who was criticized by her doctor for not gaining enough weight for her baby because of her vegetarian eating habits. he strongly advised her to consume some meat to help her baby develop properly. that certainly won't be a problem with me :biggrin: chicken and turkey is all i am craving these past few weeks since i am expecting. :cool:

Hi Kerrie!

Many doctors only have 4-8 hours of required nutrition training and aren't very good at giving nutrition advice despite what many of us think! More and more doctors are recommending a vegetarian diet these days...however, there still are many misled doctors who think that meat is healthy for a developing fetus.

If you are intersted in getting some good info about a healthy pregnancy, I'd recommend checking out the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (www.pcrm.org)...I think you'll find lots of useful info on this site, not only for your child, but also for you!

Here are some links of particular interest:
Healthy Pregnancy: http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/pregnancy.html

Raising Healthy Children: http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/veg_diets_for_children.html

I have known many women who've have very healthy vegetarian pregnancies...every woman, not just vegetarians, need to be careful of their nutrient intake as they are eating for two. On another note, many women have strange food desires during pregnancy,from sugar laden cakes and chocolates to even worse...these cravings are not neccessarily what a baby needs for development (which is what most women like to believe), many are just psychological cravings which have nothing to do with what the bodily needs...and aren't particulary "healthy foods."

It's also prudent to note that animal products are laden with antibiotics, growth hormones, and various other toxins which are extremely unhealthy for the baby. Did you know that women who eat alot of fish pass PCBs and mercury onto their child? :eek: I would be very wary of such foods...

I wish your baby and you the best of health, and I hope that the site that I've recommended is inspiring and educational. :smile:

Sincerely,
Sangeeta
 
Last edited:
  • #1,253
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
Be Happy! said:
Hi Kerrie!

On another note, many women have strange food desires during pregnancy,from sugar laden cakes and chocolates to even worse...these cravings are not neccessarily what a baby needs for development (which is what most women like to believe), many are just psychological cravings which have nothing to do with what the bodily needs...and aren't particulary "healthy foods."

It's also prudent to note that animal products are laden with antibiotics, growth hormones, and various other toxins which are extremely unhealthy for the baby. Did you know that women who eat alot of fish pass PCBs and mercury onto their child? :eek: I would be very wary of such foods...

Oh yes, I do know of the strange food cravings. So far, the only things I have craved are mineral water and chicken. And not all animal products are filled with growth hormones...for example, we have a grocery store in my area that sells all organic and hormone-free meat. I was well aware of pregnant women eating too much fish cannot be a good thing, but i think a serving once a week is probably fine. Some women really need the extra iron, and in my case, I have always been low in iron. The easiest way to get this is to have a service of meat a few times a week. I am certainly not promoting eating it 3 times a day every day, but 4-5 times a week is adequate for a woman expecting. The other days, I tend to eat meatless dishes, as I do desire a lighter meal every so often.
 
  • #1,254
Kerrie said:
Your key word here is "can", but extra care needs to go into making sure a woman's diet has enough protein and iron, which are easily found in fish and chicken. In my opinion, a woman's vegetarian diet needs to come second to the development and care of her baby.

No extra care is needed for protein. I'll grant that a person who already has a problem with iron may face slight difficulties with a vegetarian diet, as animal sources of iron are generally more iron-dense and provide more absorbable iron, but it's not like acrobatics or brain surgery to obtain iron without meat, especially with fortified foods like Special K, Total, etc.
 
  • #1,255
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
Dissident Dan said:
No extra care is needed for protein. I'll grant that a person who already has a problem with iron may face slight difficulties with a vegetarian diet, as animal sources of iron are generally more iron-dense and provide more absorbable iron, but it's not like acrobatics or brain surgery to obtain iron without meat, especially with fortified foods like Special K, Total, etc.


Special K and Total are good for breakfast, not for a solid meal that an expectant woman needs. She needs to put aside her vanity and take care of the developing child within her by nourishing herself properly. This is my third pregnancy, and I can tell you that a bowl of wheat flakes is not going to give me the total nutrition I need for the day let alone fill me up.

It never ceases to amaze me too how the pro-choice are also pro-animals. :rolleyes: No offence Dan, but it just seems contridicting.
 
  • #1,256
Kerrie said:
Special K and Total are good for breakfast, not for a solid meal that an expectant woman needs. She needs to put aside her vanity and take care of the developing child within her by nourishing herself properly. This is my third pregnancy, and I can tell you that a bowl of wheat flakes is not going to give me the total nutrition I need for the day let alone fill me up.

I understand and appreciate your desire to provide optimum nutrition for your child. However, I think that you're making a vegetarian pregnancy out to be harder than it actually is.

Special K and Total were just two examples I mentioned off the top of my head. I did not suggest that you (or anyone) should solely eat those. The cereals that I mentioned do provide a lot of vitamins and minerals (as do other things that I have neglected to mention), but you should eat other things for other nutrients.

A statement from the American Dietetic Association:
Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.
http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/92_17084.cfm

BTW, I don't know why you consider breakfast not to be a solid meal.

It never ceases to amaze me too how the pro-choice are also pro-animals. :rolleyes: No offence Dan, but it just seems contridicting.

Who said that I was pro-choice?
 
  • #1,257
The key-word is "seems" contradicting. There are many reasons why a person could be pro-choice and vegetarian. What about the fact that the unborn child has no connection to society. How can something unconnected to society be valuable to society. Furthermore, what about the fact that it will cause the mother pain to give birth? What if the baby will not live a happy life or has a horrible condition? What about population control? Female rights? I can elaborate if necessary.
 
  • #1,258
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
Dissident Dan said:
BTW, I don't know why you consider breakfast not to be a solid meal.



Who said that I was pro-choice?

I consider breakfast a solid meal when it involves eggs or a good bowl of oatmeal, not just a bowl of flakes.

I assumed you leaned towards pro-choice from your post in the abortion thread. My apologies if I assumed incorrectly.


Dooga, you should follow up your post in the ongoing abortion thread. I have known most vegetarians to be pro-choice, which seems contradictory to me. Of course, there are always reasons I have not considered that one may be pro-choice but still choose vegetarianism (such as for health reasons above the welfare of animals).
 
  • #1,259
sheepdog
The true nature of the thing.

Kerrie said:
I have known most vegetarians to be pro-choice, which seems contradictory to me.
A thing is what it is. It is not what you imagine it to be. It is not what you imagine it will become. Your hopes and desires for a thing do not change the thing. Vegetarians have a clear understanding of this.

A fetus is a part of the mother's body, like her liver or pancreas. Perhaps it will become a person. But a person is an independent organism not an appendage of someone else. A fetus is not an independent organism until born. Pro-choice is the logical conclusion.

An animal is not a piece of meat. You can make it into a piece of meat but until you butcher it it is not meat. It is a living, independent thing, unlike a fetus. Your action is required to make it meat. Vegetarianism is the logical conclusion.

Vegetarians see the thing in its true nature, not as they might desire it to be. There is no contradiction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,260
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
Sheepdog, I appreciate your perspective :smile: But it's just that, a perspective, as is mine.
 
  • #1,261
Kerrie said:
I consider breakfast a solid meal when it involves eggs or a good bowl of oatmeal, not just a bowl of flakes.

All right. I like dry cereal, and you don't. A bowl of Quaker Instant Oatmeal (2 packets) contains 40% of the RDI for iron. As I said, the cereals were just examples.

Also, a veggie burger and 2 slices of bread will contain ~20% RDI. One serving of Alexia Oven Fries (potatoes are a good source) contains 15%. Put that together, and you have ~35% RDI. Two servings of spaghetti and 1 cup of spaghetti sauce yields 20% + 12% = 32%. I have burritos that each have 15%.

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/iron.html#requ [Broken] has a list of vegetarian sources of iron.

If you want a detailed explanation, this is a good link, but be prepared to read the whole thing: http://www.llu.edu/llu/vegetarian/iron.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,262
45
0
plusaf said:
re: "Have you noticed that while humans are not allowed to eat genetically engineered corn; they are allowed to eat cows that have been fed almost entirely on genetically engineered corn..........."

ummm.... isn't it a bit more like "we're not allowed to BUY it"? it's there, but some groups have lobbied against it and used scare tactics to make its use illegal? i guess one of the theories is that if the GM food is run through a converter (cow), the bad parts of the GM of the food are not passed through. hmmmmmmm... but cows can pass prions through from their food to their meat to the folks that eat the meat.......

as for Coca-Cola and their ilk.... if the people who wanted something to drink prefered water to Coke, and someone could deliver water to them at a price which would displace Coke from all of those markets, don't you think it would have happened already????

maybe humans actually prefer Coke to un"enhanced" water? so, is it you or me who should help them see the errors of their ways and stop drinking Coke?

sorry, i abdicate that throne.

ps.
same for meat versus vegetables.
:)
+af
Well if you want to play weasel words; it is not true that we are no allowed to BUY genetically engineered corn either. We are allowed to buy it but commercial food producers who may buy it, are not allowed to use it in products intended for human consumption. I suppose it is legal to make it into dog food, and then there are always those people who will and do eat dog food.

As to the preference for 'coke' or 'water' or 'bottled water' which may be different from 'water'; I don't care what people choose to put i their bodies, but they lose the high ground of morality; vis-a-vis eating meat or plants, if they choose to do something which is neither useful nor efficient; but I defend their right to do so, and I will then ignore their pleadings that eating meat is somehow immoral; it isn't, but nobody is being forced to do it.
 
  • #1,263
91
0
down the tubes with.....

physicsisphirst said:
(been away for a week and putting in a very brief appearence for now.)
the meat apparently hangs around for 5 days whereas as the veg stuff gets through in 1 day. the meat won't kill you in the time it hangs around. however, in the little time it does hang around, it is believed that it does do some pollutive damage, so perhaps it does kill you a little bit LOL.
anyway, exactly what was your concern about the veg stuff passing through in 1 day - you said it would leave skid marks. did i answer that matter sufficiently?

hi, Prad, and welcome back; hope your travels are safe and fun.

references, please, for five days versus one?

i recall several times in my youth (and single life) when i thought i wasn't getting enough iron, and would on occasion, wolf down a can of spinach in one setting. i knew that it'd done it, because about 2-3 days later, guess what would turn green....?) :devil:

never one day later... usually 2-3. hence, my conclusion that "my digestive tract is about 3 days long." empirical evidence.

now, your url's, please? why the heck (HOW the heck) could meat in the same food tube take a detour or a 3-4 day holiday in some backwater and not go through at the same rate.....?!?!?) :confused:

:cool:
 
  • #1,264
sheepdog
Kerrie said:
Sheepdog, I appreciate your perspective :smile: But it's just that, a perspective, as is mine.
My only intention was to inform you of the logic that appeared to have escaped you. Perhaps you meant that you disagreed with it, not that you found it contradictory. If I had understood that was your meaning I wouldn't have bothered with my post, of course.
 
  • #1,265
Seafang said:
I will then ignore their pleadings that eating meat is somehow immoral; it isn't, but nobody is being forced to do it.

i've said this arguement a thousand times and im going to say it a thousand times more....

it is wrong to eat the meat of animals who have been tortured, and inhumanly killed.....animals are fed rotten and genetically altered foods, kept in chains and dark cages sitting in their own feces, prodded, injected and cut million times....

lets put you in a cage about the size of an elevator along with about 50 other people in it. lets put it in the dark, oh and to feed you, because its more "efficient" we'll use a metal probe which we'll stuff down your throat so the opening of the probe reaches the beginning of your stomach and then we'll pump your stomach full of food and chemicals to make you fatter....okay now because you're depressed and y'know wanting real food, wanting to kill yourself and fun stuff like that, to prevent you from doing that, we'll use pliers to break off the ends of their teeth (and for piglets who like to bite each others tails when they get stressed, they cut off their tails) —all with no anesthetics. wait wait...it gets better! so you've been living in your own feces all soaking wet and smelling like your excretory presents, and you're all grown now, your wrists and ankles can barely support your obese body (sometimes the legs of animals even break under them, which of course arent treated because how would that be effecient?) ....so we'll take you to the factory in an individual “gestation” crate, which is about 7 feet long and 2 feet wide—too small for you to even turn around. so we're transporting you to the factory where we'll attatch metal clasps to your wrists and ankles, now we'll turn you upside down and slit your throat, but not too deep, not enough to cut your head off or kill you(mostly because the more skin intact the easier it is to transport your dead body and the better you sell for sine they're going to use your skins for leather) ....first we'll pull out your vocal chords so your screams and screeches and cries dont reach your mouth to be heard....okay now, the machine dumps you into a pen where you run around for a bit confused, in emmense pain and sllllllooowwwwllllyyyy dying....okay now that you're all out of energy and y'know, dead, they take you to be cut up and sold for different parts....


not immoral? you think its moral to support this factory farming? no one is being forced to eat meat...but the animals are still being forced to be tortured and die....not immoral....gimme a break

ps.~ yes im vegan :blushing:
 
Last edited:
  • #1,266
sheepdog
which is which

abitofnothingleft said:
it is wrong to eat the meat of animals who have been tortured, and inhumanly killed
Which part is wrong? Is it wrong to torture the animals? Or is it wrong to eat them after torturing them? Can we eat them if we raise them as pets and love them right up until they are slaughtered? In an ideal world how should we treat the animals so that we may rightly eat them? What treatment by us makes an animal deserving of being eaten?
 
  • #1,267
Alkatran
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
954
0
abitofnothingleft said:
animals are fed rotten and genetically altered foods

What's wrong with genetically altered??
:confused:
 
  • #1,268
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
Alkatran said:
What's wrong with genetically altered??
:confused:

Every domesticated food source we have has been genetically altered for thousands of years.
 
  • #1,269
611
0
PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD CHAIN (PART I)

On page 73 of this thread I hinted that I was going expand upon the quantitative implications of the Food Chain as a prelude to answering the question as to whether we should eat meat or not. The first question is to determine the 'REASON WHY WE EAT MEAT' in the first place. So, why do we eat meat? The simplest answer that comes to one's mind is that we eat meat because it contains energy and we need energy to survive. And some of you would respond, as you have done so far in some of your postings above, that but there are many sources of energy - from plants, rocks, water, etc. But this is not the serious philosophical issue at stake here.

The serious philosophical questions are:

1) NEEDS

Why is every thing in the whole universe NEED-DRIVEN?

2) QUANTITY

Why is everything numerically driven or numerically preserved?

3) QUALITY

Why do things in the Universal from outset lack Perfect or self-sustaining qualities in their underlying structures and functions?

4) CONTINUITY

How are things really continuing, especially with regards to the spooky structure of the food chain?

5) PROGRESS

If things are truly continuing in whatever way that they do, are they also structurally and functionally progressing?


Now, let's look at the philosophical and quantitative implications involved here:

With regards to needs, when it comes to the ugly structure of the food chain, sometimes the animal creatures themselves are indistinguishable from their own needs. The ugly face of this structure unfolds when we suddenly realise that nature duplicate these animal creatures and uses them as their own needs. Nature reprodictively duplicates these animal creatures and savagedly feeds them to themselves. Animals that eat animals. And if you start intellectualising and reducing to the level of physics, you woud paradoxically be implying that:

MATTER IS EATING MATTER

Spooky, isn't it? Matter consuming matter is spooky because it is not clear why this is the case in the first place. The numerical differentiation here is fundamentally vague and unclear. Maybe the notion of animals eating animals is in some sense easier to numerically differentiate at the human level, but at the reductionist philosophical level things just get quantitativelly and logically fuzzier.

The next question is, with regards to quantity of animal creatures and the quantity of Needs, how do you reconcile both with regards to EFFICIENCY and SUFFICIENCY of both within a given food chain.? Well, this is the question for my next posting.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,270
611
0
PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD CHAIN (PART II)

If animals are being numerically duplicated not only as themselves but also as their own needs, how is the whole food chain being collectively preserved? I have asked this question for so many years now, goodness me gracious, you have no idea varied bags of answers that I always get. Some say it is an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER that is taking care of things. Some say Voodoo. Some say RANDOM CHAOS. And so on. But the puzzle remains fundamentally the same. As Ugly as the food chain outwardly appears, beneath that ugliness there is some clearly quantifiable level of intelligence in the whole process. There is a substantial level of intelligence in the process of preserving the food chain and keeping it going.

My own response to this is that the whole system is NUMERICALLY REGULATED AND PRESERVED by some sort of 'SAVED-BY-NUMBER PRINCIPLE'. This simply means:

1) The NUMBER OF ANIMALS (NA) must be numerically regulated against the NUMBER of NEEDS (NN) at any given time, if the whole food chain is to be successfully preserved. Tautologiously, this implies matter must be regulated against matter! Is it?

2) The RATE OF CUNSUMPTION (RC) must be numerically regulated against the the RATE OF DIGGESTION (RD)

3) The RC and RD must be numerically regulated against the RATE OF WASTE EXCRETION (RWE)


The far-reaching philosophical implication (and a quantitative one too) is this:

(a) If RC = RD = RWE, then we would have a gluttonous (endlessly hungry)monster in our hand, for whatever creature were to be blessed with this sort of capacity, not only would it consume every creature in every stock of animal and lick its tongue, but also it would move onto its own stock and consume every thing as well, and it would be a matter of time before it moves onto the human beings and consume everone, before self-consuming itself to self-destruct. So, it seems thereofore that the food chain is intelligibly preserved by the built-in regulatory delays in the natural quantitative interplay of RC, RD and RWS, for never at any given time should the brute force of nature speed things up in animal creatures such as to cause RC, RD and RWS to be equal.

b) The regulation of the numerical values of RC, RD and RWE has regulatory effects on NA and NN.

NOTE: Of course, if you want to get quantitativelly critical, other factors may equally be taken into account. What I have done here is set forth the spooky philosophical argument involved. If you want to mathematically spice things up and climb to any level of quantitative elegance, by all means you are free to do so. Note also, that I am not in any shape or form denying the fact that an Intelligent Designer may be resposible for this. Quite the contrary.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,271
611
0
PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD CHAIN (III)

On the issue of Progress, well this is a completely different matter. The standard Philosophical questions are these:

1) The food chain appears to be numerically preserved by repetitious recycling of its imperfect parts. That is, numerically preserved by destroying and replacing the animals in the food chain via the 'Life-and-death mechanism'.

2) If (1) is the case (things seemingly going around in circles), how do the animals in the food chain actually physically progress, perhaps towards being structurally and functionally perfected? Are these creatures structurally and functionally progressing or are they illusively and self-deceptively going around in circles?

3) If the food chain is non-progressive, can we lend nature a helping hand by scientifically intervening to structurally and functionally improve things in it? Is the food chain scientifically improvable, let alone perfectable?


These are the hard-headed philosophical questions that demand coherent and fully deduced answers. On the paradox of 'MATTER CONSUMING MATTER' at the level of physics, well that is the question for science to answer since it was science that defined matter originally. Who knows, maybe the definition of matter needs to be returned back to the drawing board. The job of philosophy is to identify oddness in things and let peoplle reflect on them a little bit more.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,272
sheepdog said:
Which part is wrong? Is it wrong to torture the animals? Or is it wrong to eat them after torturing them? Can we eat them if we raise them as pets and love them right up until they are slaughtered? In an ideal world how should we treat the animals so that we may rightly eat them? What treatment by us makes an animal deserving of being eaten?

We should not torture them, and by consuming them, we are providing the incentive for the torture, so we should not do that, either. Also, please understand that the slaughter process is very painful for many animals, especially birds, as they are exempted from the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (which isn't exactly enforced much, anyway).

No animal deserves to be eaten. As a subset of that, no human deserves to be eaten.
 
  • #1,273
119
1
Posted by physicsphirst:
if you "treat every animal great and can kill it painlessly", you may not get any objections from the utilitarian faction provided their premise is to minimize suffering. (note: that since this doesn't really happen, it is as you say merely "an exercise"). however, from a deontologic perspective one may complain if you cut the animal's life short. of course, if you limit yourself to natural deaths or even roadkill, then it is possible that many ethical vegetarians would not object, but of course, we nutriveggies wouldn't possibly tolerate this sort of gastronomic crisis

categorizing animals in terms of food, pets etc can be said to be a form of speciesism

Thank you for putting a more in depth and better explanation on that physicsphirst, by defining the different types or reasons for vegitarianism/veganism (ain't a big vocabulary good :biggrin: ). BTW, welcome back. Nutriveggie :smile: That's a good one. I'm glad to see a sense of humor every once in a while on this thread.

I have to ask though (not sarcastically, honestly), if the exercise were to come true, or we could limit ourselves (not possible I think due to population) to animals that die a natural death, would that not just leave the the nutritional vegitarian or the speciest vegitarian argument? To be honest it seems to me to boil down to two camps on vegitarianism,

1)to hold all animal life in such high regard as to have it be impossible for one to even consider killing it, or

2) To not eat meat/animal products strictly on health reasons even though you may not hold animals in as high or higher regard.

Or maybe the third camp is a mixture of both?
 
  • #1,274
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,852
10
If we could eat only animals that died a natural death, could we eat humans that did? Isn't being carniverous but not a cannibal a form of speciesism?
 
  • #1,275
GeD
147
0
What about the insects and other small lifeforms that we kill because of the need to keep vegetables and crops clean? Don't each of those lives (who are killed are more numerously than the animals we slaughter for meat) mean the same as cows, pigs, deer and sheep?
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
17K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
135
Views
19K
Replies
1
Views
841
Top