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?

[Forge]

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?

First, I no doubt animals are killed cruelly. I could type in "animal cruelty" and get a depressing number of animal torture reports. However, by no means are the majority fo animal deaths "very cruel." Most meat animals are shot in the brain. In the case of kosher meats--I think--the animals are killed quickly with a knife. (I think that's why it's "kosher"; the animal feels almost no pain)

Our right to consume other animals comes from the fact that God gave us dominance over them. However, the theological argument isn't always applicable to some people. Suffice it to say that animals are not people, and are not entitled to people-rights.

[sin_is_fun]

First, I no doubt animals are killed cruelly. I could type in "animal cruelty" and get a depressing number of animal torture reports. However, by no means are the majority fo animal deaths "very cruel." Most meat animals are shot in the brain. In the case of kosher meats--I think--the animals are killed quickly with a knife. (I think that's why it's "kosher"; the animal feels almost no pain)

Its not just the killing alone.Almost all bulls are castrated without sedatives.Every hen is debeaked without sedatives which is akin to cutting our lips with sedatives.

Our right to consume other animals comes from the fact that God gave us dominance over them. However, the theological argument isn't always applicable to some people. Suffice it to say that animals are not people, and are not entitled to people-rights.

So it all boils down to exploitation of the weak by the strong....I am strong,so I make the rules....

I dont see why god sees a bull,sheep or chicken different from a human.All of us have the same feelings.Humans and animals feel pain,have families and kids.We talk they dont talk.We are strong,they arent strong.Is that a reason for killing?

[Corvus]

I dont see why god sees a bull,sheep or chicken different from a human.All of us have the same feelings.Humans and animals feel pain,have families and kids.We talk they dont talk.We are strong,they arent strong.Is that a reason for killing?

And is the fact that animals feel pain, have families and have offspring like us are reasons enough not to be cruel to them? No, I don't think so. You are attempting to give animals, and their feelings, a value outside of their practical use, and I'm afraid none exists. The only reasons for being kind to animals are sentimental ones.

[steen]

So cruely influcting pain doesn't matter as long as the victim isn't human? We can skin chimps alive and pour acid down dolphin blowholes and it is fine and dandy?

[Corvus]

We can. We can even skin humans if we don't care for the consequences. But the fact that you're asking that sort of question expecting it to provoke disgust shows that most people have an emotional reaction against doing such things. That's not stopping some people from being cruel to animals, but we should recognise that ethical treatment of animals isn't really based on reason, but emotion (from instinct or upbringing), much like unethical treatment of animals. There are no provable moral facts. People typically don't like hearing that.

[steen]

Well, I can agree with those arguments. They happen to be factual.

[sin_is_fun]

We can. We can even skin humans if we don't care for the consequences. But the fact that you're asking that sort of question expecting it to provoke disgust shows that most people have an emotional reaction against doing such things. That's not stopping some people from being cruel to animals, but we should recognise that ethical treatment of animals isn't really based on reason, but emotion (from instinct or upbringing), much like unethical treatment of animals. There are no provable moral facts. People typically don't like hearing that.

Ethical treatment of animals and humans both are similiar.If a dictator is about to torture and kill his political enemies what reasons will we give him to stop his act?We can only give emotional and sentimental reasons."It will pain, it will hurt" these are the only reasons which we can give.For every crime and genocide in the world the only arguments to stop them are "it will pain.You too know what pain is.So empathize"

[Forge]

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?

[Corvus]

We can. We can even skin humans if we don't care for the consequences. But the fact that you're asking that sort of question expecting it to provoke disgust shows that most people have an emotional reaction against doing such things. That's not stopping some people from being cruel to animals, but we should recognise that ethical treatment of animals isn't really based on reason, but emotion (from instinct or upbringing), much like unethical treatment of animals. There are no provable moral facts. People typically don't like hearing that.

Ethical treatment of animals and humans both are similiar.If a dictator is about to torture and kill his political enemies what reasons will we give him to stop his act?

We normally don't get involved unless it's strictly necessary. And when we do, we don't "give reasons", we "give 'em hell" (spoken emphatically in a hoarse voice). Take the war in Iraq, for example. The focus has been on what the US is doing in Iraq, ostensibly to rid the world of a brutal dictator. Helping to rid the world of this brutal dictator were allies like Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Georgia, Azerbaijan... the list goes on.

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.

We can only give emotional and sentimental reasons."It will pain, it will hurt" these are the only reasons which we can give.For every crime and genocide in the world the only arguments to stop them are "it will pain. You too know what pain is.So empathize"

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.

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

Yes.