Animal food-Is it acceptable?

[sin_is_fun]

I cannot come to a decision on this.Humans have multiplied to a huge extent.We dominate the world.All other animal species have become our slaves.We use horses,dogs and guinea pigs as our slaves.We kill animals very cruelly.

We can survive without animal food.All nutrients like protein,vitamins can be got at from plant foods and supplements.So why is it that we still justify eating meat?

[sin_is_fun]

We normally don't get involved unless it's strictly necessary. And when we do, we don't "give reasons", we "give 'em hell".If we were under the dictator, self-interest would impel us to remove him in some way, if we ever reached the conclusion that the benefits of such an endeavour outweigh the risks.

So we dont have any grounds for condemning what is happening in sudan and what hitler did to jews-unless we are going to be the next victims?Any dictator can do anything to his citizens.As long as I am safe nothing else matters..is that your argument?

Why should I? If my emotions and sentiments aren't inclined that way, then nothing can really be done to force them into a set pattern. Your sentiments can't convince me that I should stop eating animals, and it's obvious your sentiments aren't shared by most people.

Many werent sharing the emotion that blacks deserved human being status in slavery era.Even now many such pseudo human categories exist-for example gays,atheists,eunuchs etc.Many cultures dont see them as humans at all.'Witches' werent considered humans and were burnt in medieval times.It was because emotions and sentiments of those people were inclinced that way.Should those emotions and sentiments be changed or not?

[steen]

We normally don't get involved unless it's strictly necessary. And when we do, we don't "give reasons", we "give 'em hell".If we were under the dictator, self-interest would impel us to remove him in some way, if we ever reached the conclusion that the benefits of such an endeavour outweigh the risks.

So we dont have any grounds for condemning what is happening in sudan and what hitler did to jews-unless we are going to be the next victims?Any dictator can do anything to his citizens.As long as I am safe nothing else matters..is that your argument?

Politically, that sure seems to be the case. Regardless of "human rights abuses," we don't get involved without "strategic interests" or strong political pressure from voters.

[sin_is_fun]

We normally don't get involved unless it's strictly necessary. And when we do, we don't "give reasons", we "give 'em hell".If we were under the dictator, self-interest would impel us to remove him in some way, if we ever reached the conclusion that the benefits of such an endeavour outweigh the risks.

So we dont have any grounds for condemning what is happening in sudan and what hitler did to jews-unless we are going to be the next victims?Any dictator can do anything to his citizens.As long as I am safe nothing else matters..is that your argument?

Politically, that sure seems to be the case. Regardless of "human rights abuses," we don't get involved without "strategic interests" or strong political pressure from voters.

But we have a policy of not supplying weapons to mass killers,not giving aid to dictator regimes etc.Eg Burma.Our soldiers fought in somalia,serbia etc to stop genocide.We condemn dictatorial regimes,abuses of human rights etc.But if opponent is strong or has powerful army we stop with condemnation.

[Corvus]

We normally don't get involved unless it's strictly necessary. And when we do, we don't "give reasons", we "give 'em hell".If we were under the dictator, self-interest would impel us to remove him in some way, if we ever reached the conclusion that the benefits of such an endeavour outweigh the risks.

So we dont have any grounds for condemning what is happening in sudan and what hitler did to jews-unless we are going to be the next victims?Any dictator can do anything to his citizens.As long as I am safe nothing else matters..is that your argument?

It's not "my argument". It's an assessment of the way things happen. Human rights only exist on the consensus of "civilised nations". You personally can still oppose dictators on a sentiment, or because your religion impels you to do so, or because you take for granted that people have some sort of value although you can't possibly prove it. And if you convince enough people, you might even be able to effect change. It's what normally happens. But this process probably won't work with animals and will be opposed from the people who rely upon farming animals as means of living, to the people who enjoy the taste of meat on their plate.

Why should I? If my emotions and sentiments aren't inclined that way, then nothing can really be done to force them into a set pattern. Your sentiments can't convince me that I should stop eating animals, and it's obvious your sentiments aren't shared by most people.

Many werent sharing the emotion that blacks deserved human being status in slavery era.

But most did, otherwise we would still have slaves. Or some of us would be slaves.

Even now many such pseudo human categories exist-for example gays,atheists,eunuchs etc. Many cultures dont see them as humans at all.

Eunuchs? How many eunuchs exist nowadays? Natural eunuchs are sometimes born, but how often? Considering their scarcity, how did you find out many cultures don't see them as human?

Which cultures nowadays don't see gays or atheists as humans? If they are at all vilified, it's because they are humans making what are perceived as improper choices. If they were considered animals, they would not be subject to moral rules and obligations.

Should those emotions and sentiments be changed or not?

It's not a matter of "should". By using "should", you're describing an ideal state of civilisation that exists in your mind, and yes, exists in my own. Then by showing how much other cultures differ from our standards, you are attempting to show that those cultures are "wrong". Sorry, no dice. You'll have to convince me on something other than the rather vague grounds of changing definitions. I think you'll find it supports my argument that there are no standards of right and wrong except the ones we make more than it supports your argument that we must treat animals nicely because you feel like it.

[steen]

But we have a policy of not supplying weapons to mass killers,not giving aid to dictator regimes etc.Eg Burma.Our soldiers fought in somalia,serbia etc to stop genocide.We condemn dictatorial regimes,abuses of human rights etc.But if opponent is strong or has powerful army we stop with condemnation.

Or, as is the case with Saddam, we actually armed him, incl. the poison gas he later used on the Kurds, because we hoped he would keep Iran in check through his bloody war. Doesn't matter that both countries murdered their own citizens through brutal oppression. Didn't matter that their war was bloody and cost a number of lives of child soldiers and conscripts of the "wrong" muslim faith.

So that "policy" only is in place when we admit it to be because it is conveniet to show our self-righteousness at election time.

[bernee51]

There are no provable moral facts. People typically don't like hearing that.

And therefore there is no right&wrong, but rather opinions, prejudices, and the like?

Actions are just actions. Whether they are right or wrong is determined by the observer...it is subjective. Some actions, e.g. murder, are held to be 'wrong' by a majority, thus giving the appearance of an objective wrong.

[sin_is_fun]

It's not "my argument". It's an assessment of the way things happen. Human rights only exist on the consensus of "civilised nations". You personally can still oppose dictators on a sentiment, or because your religion impels you to do so, or because you take for granted that people have some sort of value although you can't possibly prove it. And if you convince enough people, you might even be able to effect change. It's what normally happens. But this process probably won't work with animals and will be opposed from the people who rely upon farming animals as means of living, to the people who enjoy the taste of meat on their plate.

I did not take the 'human rights are out there' position.Whatever we call as human rights and democracy are institutions and philosophies that grew in Europe and are accepted as better alternatives for governing the world by a sect of people.The sect of people who accept it are most western philsophers,many European nations and other nations in the world.

I direct my questions mainly against of this democratic world.People will oppose rights to animals-I know this.But I am interested in the arguments they will put forward for doing so.Except "Their slavery benefits me" they dont have any arguments justifying their actions.They call their civilization as enlightened and advanced-but it isnt.This is my argument.I do not talk about absolute moral standards.I know they dont exist.

But most did, otherwise we would still have slaves. Or some of us would be slaves.

What rights did these 'most' had to force their views on the minority who wanted to keep slaves?Do you think the majority was justified in its action of forcing the minority southern states at gun point to change their views on blacks?

Eunuchs? How many eunuchs exist nowadays? Natural eunuchs are sometimes born, but how often? Considering their scarcity, how did you find out many cultures don't see them as human?

Eunuchs are scarce in west but not in East.They form seperate societies in East Eg:India.They are disowned by their families.They form seperate colonies and live without jobs and social links with the outside world.

Which cultures nowadays don't see gays or atheists as humans? If they are at all vilified, it's because they are humans making what are perceived as improper choices. If they were considered animals, they would not be subject to moral rules and obligations.

Gays,converts and lesbians will be stoned to death in middle east.I dint say they are considered as animals but I said they are considered as pseudo humans.

It's not a matter of "should". By using "should", you're describing an ideal state of civilisation that exists in your mind, and yes, exists in my own. Then by showing how much other cultures differ from our standards, you are attempting to show that those cultures are "wrong". Sorry, no dice. You'll have to convince me on something other than the rather vague grounds of changing definitions. I think you'll find it supports my argument that there are no standards of right and wrong except the ones we make more than it supports your argument that we must treat animals nicely because you feel like it.

Where did I say there are absolute 'rights' and 'wrongs'?By using 'should' I am describing an ideal state of society which is in my mind.But I am not doing anything differently than the designers of american constitution who had an ideal state of society in their mind.Every philsopher had an ideal state of society in his mind.Nietzsche dreamt of creating a new Europe,marx dreamt of a world without exploitations.

[ST88]

We can survive without animal food.All nutrients like protein,vitamins can be got at from plant foods and supplements.So why is it that we still justify eating meat?

This isn't entirely true. Though it would appear correct on its face, the idea that technology is able to bring us the supplements that we require shouldn't be taken into account when determining the philosophical nature of eating meat.

Adequate amounts of vitamin B12 cannot be acquired by the human body through an exclusively vegetarian diet (vegan), and there is certainly not enough for pregnant women in a plant-based diet. Before the age of chemical B12 supplements, vegans either suffered from anemia because of the lack of B12, or else were forced to consume dried up calf's liver in order to get enough.

Though it is currently possible to consume enough B12 without resorting to eating animals anymore, your question goes to the heart of what is right and wrong about it. If humans evolved requiring B12 in order to survive and reproduce, we have to conclude that humans are meat eaters. As hunters of animals, we haven't evolved physically all that much. We have only managed to industrialize the practice of hunting so that not all members of the human race are required to hunt their own prey.

There is also additional evidence that food satiety is related to the "feeling" of fat and meat in the mouth. Though similar effects can be got from cashews and mushrooms (for example), these were presumably not widely available during the time in which humanity evolved, but meat was. The Japanese call this feeling (or taste), "umami," and is the reason why MSG is used in many Asian foods.

You could argue that, ethically, we have civilized ourselves out of requiring the servitude of animals. But the fact remains that we are hunter-gatherers, no matter how much civilization you want to put on humanity, the instinct to hunt and to eat the hunted animal will always be there. This view assumes that humans are themselves animals, and there is nothing all that special about humanity in this regard. We have molded and shaped a good bit of the earth to suit us, but this can be compared to termites building mounds or bears digging burrows, just on a grander scale.

[sin_is_fun]

Adequate amounts of vitamin B12 cannot be acquired by the human body through an exclusively vegetarian diet (vegan), and there is certainly not enough for pregnant women in a plant-based diet. Before the age of chemical B12 supplements, vegans either suffered from anemia because of the lack of B12, or else were forced to consume dried up calf's liver in order to get enough.

I did not talk about vegan diet.We can get B12 from milk.I dont recommend a vegan diet.Lacto vegetarianism will give you all nutrients you need.In south East Asia buddhist,hindu and jains never touch meat.They dont suffer from any anemia.Their pregnant women dont suffer from any defienency.Their population growth is a proof

Though it is currently possible to consume enough B12 without resorting to eating animals anymore, your question goes to the heart of what is right and wrong about it. If humans evolved requiring B12 in order to survive and reproduce, we have to conclude that humans are meat eaters. As hunters of animals, we haven't evolved physically all that much. We have only managed to industrialize the practice of hunting so that not all members of the human race are required to hunt their own prey.

We are no more hunters.We lost that title when we came out of forest.After that we became farmers,industrialists and have transformed us so much.Meat eating is no more a necessity now.We have evolved.We dont need food habits of a past bygone era now.When we are nomore called as hunters we nomore need hunting.

There is also additional evidence that food satiety is related to the "feeling" of fat and meat in the mouth. Though similar effects can be got from cashews and mushrooms (for example), these were presumably not widely available during the time in which humanity evolved, but meat was. The Japanese call this feeling (or taste), "umami," and is the reason why MSG is used in many Asian foods.

You can get fat from many other sources.Peanuts,oily food etc.

You could argue that, ethically, we have civilized ourselves out of requiring the servitude of animals. But the fact remains that we are hunter-gatherers, no matter how much civilization you want to put on humanity, the instinct to hunt and to eat the hunted animal will always be there. This view assumes that humans are themselves animals, and there is nothing all that special about humanity in this regard. We have molded and shaped a good bit of the earth to suit us, but this can be compared to termites building mounds or bears digging burrows, just on a grander scale.

We came a long way from being hunter-gatherers.Now people will even be offended if they are called as hunters and gatherers.Maybe tribals living in jungle can be called like that.Is it fair to call somebody who has never seen a jungle as hunter?

[Corvus]

It's not "my argument". It's an assessment of the way things happen. Human rights only exist on the consensus of "civilised nations". You personally can still oppose dictators on a sentiment, or because your religion impels you to do so, or because you take for granted that people have some sort of value although you can't possibly prove it. And if you convince enough people, you might even be able to effect change. It's what normally happens. But this process probably won't work with animals and will be opposed from the people who rely upon farming animals as means of living, to the people who enjoy the taste of meat on their plate.

I direct my questions mainly against of this democratic world.

Well it's aired in a debate forum towards everyone. You asked if animal food is acceptable and I pointed out that indeed it is. If you wanted to point out false modern beliefs then I would suggest that an essay is more what you should be aiming at. I think it quite sad that the noble tradition of the literary essay has fallen into disuse. I could stand to see more essays in similar vein to Richard le Gallienne's Bull in a China Shop if I thought it would actually do something.

People will oppose rights to animals-I know this.But I am interested in the arguments they will put forward for doing so.Except "Their slavery benefits me" they dont have any arguments justifying their actions.They call their civilization as enlightened and advanced-but it isnt.

Only if you don't buy into the concepts they believe in. For western civilisations, "man is the measure of all things", not pain and pleasure, and if we consider that a culture can be esteemed advanced or enlightened by judging to what extent they believe in this maxim, then yes, they can call their civilisation enlightened and advanced.

But most did, otherwise we would still have slaves. Or some of us would be slaves.

What rights did these 'most' had to force their views on the minority who wanted to keep slaves?Do you think the majority was justified in its action of forcing the minority southern states at gun point to change their views on blacks?

Do you think the minority southern states had a right to force their views on slaves? Why are you talking about rights if you already admitted that you don't believe in them?

Eunuchs? How many eunuchs exist nowadays? Natural eunuchs are sometimes born, but how often? Considering their scarcity, how did you find out many cultures don't see them as human?

Eunuchs are scarce in west but not in East.They form seperate societies in East Eg:India.They are disowned by their families.They form seperate colonies and live without jobs and social links with the outside world.

India and Pakistan would be the only examples, as far as I am aware. The reason I questioned you about it is that historically eunuchs occupied important social positions. They were keepers of the harems in the orient, in which the Indian eunuchs probably have their tradition, and in the west, they were adorable little chorists.

Which cultures nowadays don't see gays or atheists as humans? If they are at all vilified, it's because they are humans making what are perceived as improper choices. If they were considered animals, they would not be subject to moral rules and obligations.

Gays,converts and lesbians will be stoned to death in middle east.I dint say they are considered as animals but I said they are considered as pseudo humans.

I disagree. They may be treated horribly, but that does not mean they aren't considered real humans. I believe the only reason you are saying such is the case is in an attempt to blur the distinction between animals and humans that you very well know exists.

It's not a matter of "should". By using "should", you're describing an ideal state of civilisation that exists in your mind, and yes, exists in my own. Then by showing how much other cultures differ from our standards, you are attempting to show that those cultures are "wrong". Sorry, no dice. You'll have to convince me on something other than the rather vague grounds of changing definitions. I think you'll find it supports my argument that there are no standards of right and wrong except the ones we make more than it supports your argument that we must treat animals nicely because you feel like it.

Where did I say there are absolute 'rights' and 'wrongs'?By using 'should' I am describing an ideal state of society which is in my mind.But I am not doing anything differently than the designers of american constitution who had an ideal state of society in their mind.Every philsopher had an ideal state of society in his mind.Nietzsche dreamt of creating a new Europe,marx dreamt of a world without exploitations.

And Hitler dreamt of a world without Jews.