|
|
|
|
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 11:10:30 AM |
Then you should be OK with soylent green too, or would you prefer the more natural product? There are societies that eat people as a matter of their nature. Are you OK with that? (to be ethically consistent you should be)
IF I had no choice, then I would have no problem with this. If as a result of my death (albeit natural) meant that my family and friends possibly species survived then ok. However, we have not come to that yet. I can chose what to eat and how much, I do not eat cat or dog, I dont like eating some vegetables either. Most of these cultures that chose cannibalism do it through some ritual, I don't believe in any rituals, I eat because I am hungry, I don't kill animals for sport, pleasure or any recreation. Jews don't eat pork because it is their custom, I eat it because I like the taste, it's easy to farm and because I'm hungry.
I know that some people have to disassociate themselves with what they eat, they see a cow but eat beef, they see a pig but eat pork, see a sheep but eat lamb. Vegans and PeTA do the same, they 'pretend' they can be ethical and take the moral highground but to maintain their lifestyle animals have to serve them.
Do you really think that the society you chose to belong to, could survive without war, oil and beef? | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 11:16:15 AM |
Then you should be OK with soylent green too, or would you prefer the more natural product? There are societies that eat people as a matter of their nature. Are you OK with that? (to be ethically consistent you should be)
I'd have no qualms with eating humans if it was healthy to do so and it tasted good. Once I'm dead I would hope in that case that people would eat me too. I don't agree with killing intelligent animals (humans) for food. If soylent green is made out of the remains of deceased people, if it's nutritious and tastes good, put me down for some.  Morals are just whatever a society decides they are. What is immoral for one society is perfectly moral for another. There are no overarching morals because there is no god to dictate them. They are just a construct of our minds. Animals don't have morals...only the human animal. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 11:56:32 AM | >>>I haven't really looked into PETA's activities to any extent.
Well, I have. They've given alot of their money to shady sources, like paying to keep arsonists out of prison and on the streets because they burn animal labs, or re-donating money that was already donated to them to organizations that are considered terrorist by the FBI because of their violent tactics, such as death threats, vandalism, and arson.
Look up terrorist organisations like ALF and ELF, both of which have received praise by PeTA, or a man by the name of Rod Cornado, who in 1996 set fire to a Michigan University and received tens of thousands of dollars from PeTA for doing it.
Also, I hate these organsations for their hypocricy- they say that killing animals are wrong, and yet they kill over 2/3 of the animals they take under their care. They say they wouldn't accept a cure to AIDS if it was tested on animals, and yet the Senior Vice President of PeTA, Mary Beth Sweetnam, is a diabetic- so she IS using medication that is derived from animals parts, and a cure that came about due to testing on dogs.
>>> I was unaware of any "terrorist" activities beyond freeing animals
Nope- Arson and death threats are the actions of PeTA. They have no concept of property rights, assaulting people for wearing fur, and sending death threats;
I openly hope that it [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here.
~PeTA President and Co-Founder Ingrid Newkirk
It's hard to say where this is going, but we're not giving in … Right now, I think it's inevitable that somebody's going to get hurt.
~Bryan Pease, PeTA Spokesman
I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.
~PeTA President and Co-Founder Ingrid Newkirk
Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are "acceptable crimes"
when used for the animals' cause.
-Alex Pacheco, Former Chairman of PeTA
Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.
~PeTA President and Co-Founder Ingrid Newkirk
Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.
~PeTA President and Co-Founder Ingrid Newkirk
There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation.
~PeTA President and Co-Founder Ingrid Newkirk
Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to a bunch of cinders? Yes.
~PeTA President and Co-Founder Ingrid Newkirk
I will be the last person to condemn ALF [the Animal Liberation Front].
~PeTA President and Co-Founder Ingrid Newkirk | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:05:11 PM |
I'd have no qualms with eating humans if it was healthy to do so and it tasted good. Once I'm dead I would hope in that case that people would eat me too. I don't agree with killing intelligent animals (humans) for food
The first two sentences indicate that you are ethically consistent, however that last one about not agreeing with killing intelligent animals puts you on a slippery slope. What level of intelligence is the clear dividing line between food and too intelligent for food? Is IQ (or similar measurement) the criterion? Why? If intelligence is the criterion, then you should have no problem with extremely low IQ people (as dumb as many animals you'd consider food) being slaughtered for food because some people find them tasty. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:13:10 PM |
Tell ya' what. How about rather than have PETA wasting its time protesting and throwing paint on people wearing furs and generally looking like a bunch of nutters, why don't they try something a little more practical? How about concentrate on projects that increase and reclaim land for agriculture? How about working on ways of improving crop yields? Reducing crop loss to disease and pests? Then they can reduce the need for meat.
Because that would be reasonable and these aren't reasonable people. They are extremists. Extremism is almost always a bad thing, whether it's religion or anything else. I'm all for the ethical treatment of animals. I don't think any animals should be made to suffer unnecessarily. If some nincompoop was to say throw paint on a coat of mine, (don't have any fur ones but I do wear leather sometimes) they would get a quick lesson in manners. Same goes for some environmental extremist if he tried to deface my hummer(if I had one). | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:17:10 PM | Let me first say that I rarely eat meat. For years it has been a religious practice...however my views on religion have changed, due to academia, and participation on these forums...however I do still practice prashadam and say my prayers. And I still participate in kirtans.
When I do eat meat, it either comes from a craving (which happens about every six months), or because it is served, at an event or a dinner party, and to not eat it might be construed as being rude. (I suffer from Southern politeness.)
I don't feel morally superior. In fact I feel somewhat of a hypocrite, since I do, occasionally, eat meat. I just don't like the taste, the feeling it weighs me down, and the idea that there is a dead animal sitting inside my intestines for a week. My body just doesn't digest it well.
I used to belong to PETA. I became less active because I couldn't fully support their views or actions. Throwing paint on someone's fur coat is just downright rude. (The group I was affiliated with actually did this.) And I feel like everyone should have a choice...
Waywardwillow is actually correct, in stating how much land is being used, in order to sustain a meat eating culture. More resources are being used, and I am interested in long term sustainability. I have children, and I am concerned about the earth that they will inherit.
In her book "Slaughterhouse", Gail Eisnitz interviewed dozens of workers throughout the States, and these were some of her findings...
"I see them take those stunners-they are about as long as a yardstick-and shove it up a hog's a$$...they do it with cows too...they will be squealing and they just shove it right down there."
" I could tell you horror stories...about cattle getting their heads stuck under the gate guards, and the only way you can get it out is to cut off their heads while they are still alive."
"I seen guys take a broomstick and shove it up the cow's behind, screwing them with a broom."
"One time I took my knife...and sliced off the end of a hog's nose...I took a handful of salt brine and ground it into it's nose all over the place. I still had a handful of brine so I shoved it up the hog's a$$. The poor hog didn't know whether to $hit or go blind."
How is that tasty meat tasting right now?
When I first read this I felt sick to my stomach. I went on a huge vegan kick, however my children protested vehemently. I finally got it when I took my daughter to work one day, and she asked my co-workers if they had any meat or dairy that she could eat.
Above all, I try to support my children's choices. I cook vegetarian dinners, allow some meat in the house, usually in the shape of pizza or Chef Boyardee. Those are their favorites.
I have noticed that moral superiority stems from the need to feel better than. I try not to support that idea. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:24:34 PM | They have no concept of property rights
Well, I can't fault them for that. My personal view is that there is no philosophical justification for what we normally call "property" and it is therefore an illegitimate "right" of our society. It ought to be redefined.
a man by the name of Rod Cornado, who in 1996 set fire to a Michigan University and received tens of thousands of dollars from PeTA for doing it.
How is that any different from a bounty hunter who might have gotten $50M from the US Government for Osama Bin Laden's head, even though he has never been convicted of a crime under US law?
yet they kill over 2/3 of the animals they take under their care.
If true, you have a good point.
While I don't agree with the violence of it, I do note that these people appear to be fighting what they consider a just war of liberation not unlike the American civil war's (ostensible) purpose of liberating the slaves. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:35:08 PM |
" I could tell you horror stories...about cattle getting their heads stuck under the gate guards, and the only way you can get it out is to cut off their heads while they are still alive."
Right here, right now I have on my phone a clip of someone at a slaughter house chainsawing off a pigs head and it is realing around.
It is the individuals who practice bad husbandry that should be addressed NOT farming.
If we just managed the land without animal or fossil fuel fertilisers the land would not produce enough tonnage to feed everyone. You would have to implement set aside and allow the land to go fallow otherwise the crops would soon starve the land making it useless. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:36:34 PM | however that last one about not agreeing with killing intelligent animals puts you on a slippery slope. What level of intelligence is the clear dividing line between food and too intelligent for food? Is IQ (or similar measurement) the criterion? Why? If intelligence is the criterion, then you should have no problem with extremely low IQ people (as dumb as many animals you'd consider food) being slaughtered for food because some people find them tasty.
I just don't agree with your reasoning Dukky, with all due respect. We see things differently. Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, these things are subjective. The level of intelligence is not the dividing line. It's the type of intelligence I suppose. Only humans are self aware, able to think in an abstract way, reason, feel compassion and empathy, have complex emotional structures. Animals don't have dreams and aspirations, morals or compassion, no more than insects do. For example, when you harvest one of the cows, the rest of the herd doesn't feel incredible sorrow for the lost one. They don't continue to suffer and think about it for years or even the rest of their lives. They don't think at all in the way we do.
If you kill a person, even one that may well deserve it or one without the power of moral thought, it's likely that at least someone will suffer a great loss and feel emotional pain because of it. Even an idiot usually has some people who love him and will suffer greatly if he is killed. Humans are special as some put it. Not because god put us here and we're his prized pets but because we are the only "intelligent" lifeform on the planet. I think therefore I am. To me that gives us not only the power to use whatever we see fit for our survival, but the right to, if such a thing actually exists outside of our own minds. Notice I said 'to me'. Everyone is free to their own opinions, it's only when some try to push their own version of morals onto others that problems arise.
How is that tasty meat tasting right now?
Tastes just yummy thanks...I was finishing off a turkey sandwich as I read that part and it had no affect on me at all. I know these are just isolated occurences by sick people and not the rule. Some people are low lifes and sadistic. I see examples of this on the news every day. It bothers me far worse to see examples of human suffering though. I have morals and compassion but I don't take anything to extremes. I think I'll make myself a couple hot dogs now. :) | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:43:21 PM |
"I seen guys take a broomstick and shove it up the cow's behind, screwing them with a broom."
"One time I took my knife...and sliced off the end of a hog's nose...I took a handful of salt brine and ground it into it's nose all over the place. I still had a handful of brine so I shoved it up the hog's a$$. The poor hog didn't know whether to $hit or go blind."
What you are describing is a human characteristic that I am sure many would just as soon not talk about. This trait can be attributed to virtually all the atrocities committed throughout history.
When humans are put in a situation where they feel unease, or conflict with their moral values they need to find a way to justify their actions and the easiest way is to make the cause of the conflict the enemy. That way they can justify their actions.
I have worked in factory farms when I was younger and found myself committing similar acts.
Humans do this in other situations as well. Whether it is the atrocities carried out at Abu Graib, or Auschwitz, the underlying cause is the same. The victim becomes the enemy, demoralized, an object of hate, then the atrocities become not only justified, but necessary in order to keep the justification going. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:45:16 PM |
It is the individuals who practice bad husbandry that should be addressed NOT farming.
I do agree with this statement. I try to buy my milk raw, purchased from a farm, however they shut down due to not enough customers, and hence a reduced amount of milk production. So I am on a search...
If we just managed the land without animal or fossil fuel fertilisers the land would not produce enough tonnage to feed everyone.
There is a difference from using fuels as a resource, than using animals. One is dead, the other isn't.
It takes far more land and resources to sustain a meat culture, than it would a vegetarian culture.
That is just a fact. Cattle need to ingest far more grain than we do. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:46:03 PM | To simply address the original topic:
No. Period.
It's amply demonstrated that not only is PETA no "more" moral than the rest of society, it is demonstrably LESS so. By and large they would rather directly cause the deaths of animals than see them in any kind of human care, use, or possession. The hoof and mouth comment? She would like to see animals fatally ill rather than used [hopefully humanely] by humans. PETA animal shelters excel at killing animals, not sheltering them or finding them better homes. PETA funds do not one thing to improve the "ethical treatment of animals". Their concern isn't actually animals. Their actions are aimed only at the humans who use animals in some form, and give little or no consideration to the welfare of the animals themselves. That makes them a pinnacle of hypocrisy, not a paragon of moral or "ethical" virtue.
For vegans in particular, it's another story. Vegans are not a single coherant group with a common agenda or stance. There is no shortage of extreme and uninformed hypocrites among them, and there are many who at least try to maintain a higher moral standard [per se]. As a group, that means they're no better than society at large.
I just don't agree with your reasoning Dukky, with all due respect. We see things differently. Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, these things are subjective. The level of intelligence is not the dividing line. It's the type of intelligence I suppose. Only humans are self aware, able to think in an abstract way, reason, feel compassion and empathy, have complex emotional structures. Animals don't have dreams and aspirations, morals or compassion, no more than insects do. For example, when you harvest one of the cows, the rest of the herd doesn't feel incredible sorrow for the lost one. They don't continue to suffer and think about it for years or even the rest of their lives. They don't think at all in the way we do.
Unfortunately, all of this is heresay and assumption, and to one degree or another, much of it is false. Simpler to say "we're humans, and other life forms are part of our diet." | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:55:17 PM |
Animals don't have dreams and aspirations, morals or compassion, no more than insects do. For example, when you harvest one of the cows, the rest of the herd doesn't feel incredible sorrow for the lost one. They don't continue to suffer and think about it for years or even the rest of their lives. They don't think at all in the way we do.
If you raised a bunch of humans the same way as you raise pigs in a factory farm, taken from their mother at birth and kept in a pen their entire lives, not given an education, or taught to speak, read, or anything, I believe they would act exactly the same way as pigs in a factory farm. I doubt they would feel sorrow, love, compassion, dreams, etc.
Actually animals in the wild, or pets show all the characteristics as humans. They don’t know algebra, but have the exact same emotions, and are very much aware that they are alive, and mourn the death of their loved ones. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 12:58:57 PM | Unfortunately, all of this is heresay and assumption, and to one degree or another, much of it is false.
Of course it's assumption...it's just my opinion, I said that. You saying much of it is false...well that's just assumption and heresay...your opinion. You're welcome to it. I'm not trying to justify my eating animals as I feel no need to, I'm perfectly comfortable with it. I'm was just trying to explain to Dukky my 'opinion' as it differs from his and I'm the only authority on that.
If you raised a bunch of humans the same way as you raise pigs in a factory farm, taken from their mother at birth and kept in a pen their entire lives, not given an education, or taught to speak, read, or anything, I believe they would act exactly the same way as pigs in a factory farm. I doubt they would feel sorrow, love, compassion, dreams, etc.
What is your point? First off I think you're wrong. So if we turn the tables and raise the pig as a human it will eventually be writing books and posting here with us in these forums. :) | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 1:05:32 PM | Who says animals have no morality? Animals in the wild have certain rules of conduct and such... A mother caring for her young... Or even my old dog who would let the smaller dog bite him all over without retaliating because he knew that she was no match for him; he would even watch over my brother in law's baby when they came over and made sure the baby didn't get hurt and such.
I think that animals do have morality and can know right from wrong in their own way. I would even dare say that there are more immoral humans than there are immoral animals...
I really like the idea that we could feed a vegetarian society with more ease than a meat eating one. This could be a step towards ending world hunger.
It would be nice to see a society where animals where treated properly and had more chances of being happy. I think that it would still be possible to utilize animals as per necessity and yet still provide them with a much happier life then they have now.
If we keep on going as we are now, we may very well have to resort to cannibalism in a future hunger crisis. Cannibalism could be practice with some decency, I think, although by the time it becomes necessity it would most likely be a free for all and result in murder and mayhem. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 1:16:32 PM |
Only humans are self aware, able to think in an abstract way, reason, feel compassion and empathy, have complex emotional structures. Animals don't have dreams and aspirations, morals or compassion, no more than insects do.
How can you know that? Aren't you making an unproved assertion (better known as an assumption)? Having watched animal behaviour, I have observed some animals display what appears to be "self awareness" & caring. I also know some animals DO dream. As far as aspirations go, I haven't observed that, but can't deny that they might have a sense of it, though really, why would anyone, human or animal aspire to something if they are happy & content? As far as complexity goes, the same argument applies as for intelligence; what makes it a valid criterion, and when is an organism considered "complex enough" to rate rights?
For example, when you harvest one of the cows, the rest of the herd doesn't feel incredible sorrow for the lost one. They don't continue to suffer and think about it for years or even the rest of their lives. They don't think at all in the way we do.
If you've worked at a slaughterhouse, you know that isn't at all true of pigs. They know damn well they are being led to slaughter and don't like it one bit. They'll run if given the opportunity and have to be pretty well pushed in for slaughter. Their behaviour appears very much like the behaviour we might expect from humans in the same situation.
Even an idiot usually has some people who love him and will suffer greatly if he is killed
What about the suffering of people who can't stand the thought of pigs & cows being tortured & killed in slaughterhouses? If your argument applies to people who feel bad for other people, why does it not also apply to people who feel bad for animals and who suffer anguish at the wanton slaughter? Don't their feelings also count?
Humans are special as some put it...
What makes us so "special"?
...because we are the only "intelligent" lifeform on the planet
An erroneous assumption based on our parochial attitude.
I think therefore I am
Descartes fallacious "proof" of his existence.
t's only when some try to push their own version of morals onto others that problems arise.
That isn't what I'm doing. I'm checking for ethical consistency (i.e. does your practice match your beliefs and are all your beliefs correct in the sense that they are not fallacious assumptions). For instance, if you believe animals should not have human rights because humans are "special", then you have to show what it is about humans that makes us special. If it is, intelligence, then, since intelligence is not a discrete thing, but on a continuum, you must determine a "cutoff point between human and animal intelligence. Moreover, knowing there exist some humans with intelligence below that level that you set, people below that level lose their "specialness", so in order to be ethically consistent, you would have to (in all fairness) consider people without that specialness as animals and treat them the same as you feel animals should be treated. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 1:21:58 PM |
PETA animal shelters excel at killing animals, not sheltering them or finding them better homes
Not true. I believe you are getting your information from sources like “petakillsanimals.com” and other sites that are proven to be funded by the billion dollar meat industry.
Yes PETA kills animals. Only those where there is no other option, as in those that are so abused and suffering that killing them is more humane than keeping them alive.
Yes the meat industry fears PETA. Vegetarians are the enemy. Can’t let these ideas take hold. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 1:36:17 PM |
How can you know that? Aren't you making an unproved assertion (better known as an assumption)? Having watched animal behaviour, I have observed some animals display what appears to be "self awareness" & caring. I also know some animals DO dream. As far as aspirations go, I haven't observed that, but can't deny that they might have a sense of it, though really, why would anyone, human or animal aspire to something if they are happy & content?
I don't 'know' that I suppose any more than I 'know' there is no god. I believe it and act accordingly. I'm not a hypocrite. If I believed as you apparently do I would not eat animals. I don't believe that animals think as we do. I believe they act on instinct. I believe I love hamburgers...no, I know I love hamburgers.  | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 1:42:47 PM |
Who says animals have no morality? Animals in the wild have certain rules of conduct and such... A mother caring for her young... Or even my old dog who would let the smaller dog bite him all over without retaliating because he knew that she was no match for him; he would even watch over my brother in law's baby when they came over and made sure the baby didn't get hurt and such.
I think that animals do have morality and can know right from wrong in their own way. I would even dare say that there are more immoral humans than there are immoral animals...
Me...I say they have no morality. All those things you describe I think are just instincts, albeit complex ones. Yes there are more immoral humans than immoral animals because there are no immoral animals. They don't have morals.
Disclaimer: All of the above in just the posters opinion. For future reference everything this poster says is his opinion. I take it as a given that everybody speaks in their own opinion but some seem to have a tough time with this concept. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 1:59:12 PM |
I believe I love hamburgers...no, I know I love hamburgers
I love 'em too...There's a little place near me that makes the best one's you've ever tasted and I'm "hooked." Given my position on respect for life, that makes me a hypocrite (which pisses me off, because my daughter's a vegetarian, which gives her the moral "high ground" in our arguments and she's quick to point out my hypocrisy) and I feel bad about it, which makes me feel kinda guilty when I eat them, which gives them the appeal of the "forbidden fruit", which makes it taste even better, which...Well, you get the idea.
Other than that, I lead a pretty moral life, so my craving for meat kinda irritates me and I have to drink to feel better about myself...  | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 2:07:05 PM | | I consider myself a moral person as well in as much as I try to adhere to my own idea of what is moral. Unfortunately we have this little thing that I also don't believe animals have called a conscience which is a form of self punishment for slipping up. I have a very large conscience and sometimes I wish it wasn't so powerful. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 2:09:56 PM |
Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
No. It is not immoral to do things which are in your nature to do. Humans eat meat in order to survive. That is not immoral. True, we do not require meat as our only form of sustenance, but it is part of our natural diet.
If done humanely, killing a cow is no different than killing a head of lettuce. Both are natural organisms that play a role in the ecosystem. Killing them in order to eat is not immoral.
It'd be like saying that gazelle are more moral than lions because gazelle only eat grass while lions only eat cute little gazelle. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 2:21:25 PM |
if you believe animals should not have human rights because humans are "special", then you have to show what it is about humans that makes us special. If it is, intelligence, then, since intelligence is not a discrete thing, but on a continuum, you must determine a "cutoff point between human and animal intelligence.
I think there needs to be a definition of intelligence. It does not require intelligence to feel fear or suffering in a real way. Humans have developed the part of the brain that can perform mathematical calculations, and verbal communication. Animals have not. They have not had a need to, instead they have developed other parts of the brain, for example dogs being able to smell cancer growing in humans.
This in no way means that animals can not feel pain, fear and suffering the same way as humans. It is probably just as real as human suffering. Whales which have been hunted to near extinction have an elaborate verbal communication method, and have brains which are larger than human. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 2:21:28 PM | Just Dkky (Just Ducky or Just Duck-key? Just happy go lucky? Or is the duck the key to it all?)
Think of all the poor yeast you're killing. 
The whole arguement stems from empathy (yes animals feel emotions that we empathise with). Surely this emotion (which is common to most) must be dealt with.
Different cultures have had different ways of dealing with it:
Reincarnation based beliefs see that these animals, will one day become people, that everything is transitory, that, infact we have passed through similiar trials in the past.
Some believing in poetic reincarnation would see culprits coming back as animals to be possibly abused and eaten.
Some would say that animals were given to humans and thus is our right to treat them as we will (though there is an implied moral responsibility they were a gift after all).
Lately what we've tried is to ignore the issue as much as possible unless it suits our political purposes. So Europe focuses on Seal Killing while force-feeding their fowl to create wonderful fois-gras. And we focus on demonizing say, China for milking bears of bile while we do wonderful things to baby cows to make sure the meat is 'extratender'.
Personally, like like JustDkky, I abhor my own inconsistencies. I am ok with eating meat, but I have a connection with the thing I am consuming. I would like to know that it had a comfortable life while it lived. Otherwise, I understand that life feeds on life, whether plant (which I believe also have consciousness) or animal.
Personally though, I know that I am healthier if I am eating less or no meat. But that's just me and I strongly believe that every-body is different (to a certain degree). | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 8/26/2009 2:28:11 PM |
They have no concept of property rights
They have concepts of territorial rights, so how is that different?
Unfortunately we have this little thing that I also don't believe animals have called a conscience which is a form of self punishment for slipping up.
Have you had a dog who got into your garbage, and felt bad about it? The second you chastise them, they take on an admission of guilt and regret, and demonstrate a sense of "remorse". I could be projecting here, however I cannot discount the behavior that is being exhibited by the dog.
Or the pig being led to the slaughterhouse.
They demonstrate behaviors that are associated with humans: a reluctance to die.
Hence the whole "fight, flight or freeze". The part of the brain (brain stem and pons...) that is considered "reptilian". (Thank you silverous, for helping me make that distinction).
I am not even attempting to be objective here. This is an opinionated thread, and I am offering an opinion... | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
