Eating animals thoughts on morality ?!

Morals are personal. What you find moral, I may not. Humans have farmed animals for their milk and meat for probably 10,000 years. There's nothing wrong with it. If you don't like porno, don't watch it. If you don't want to eat meat, don't eat it. Those are moral decisions and to each their own.

But don't preach to me about being veg*n because you don't want to kill animals. Because animals die in the production of your veggies and grains, just as they die for the meat I eat. I won't allow you to quantify "well you kill more because you eat both" or "more are killed for animal feed" because it doesn't make a difference. Killing is killing. Your diet kills animals. That's a fact, well known by now. A dead animal, cow or field mice, is just as dead whether you choose to eat it or not. Until vegans give up eating, or using ALL byproducts (not just leather) of animal slaughter, they have no moral high ground.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/9…

http://letthemeatmeat.com/

This is not true. Moral standards of behaviour evolved as part of our adaptations to living in large social groups which operated best when the groups were cohesive. It is likely that morals gave rise to laws and that is how our society became so advanced. But it is not reasonable to say that other species don't have morals- there is plenty of evidence of behaviour among non-human primates and other social species which indicate social orders are in place and when individuals are caught crossing the line they are punished. This even occurs in insects. There is not a single scientist in the field of behavioural ecology who would say that humans are the only animals capable of developing and observing moral standards. So it may be your definition of morality as a human concept which is flawed, as well as the tired old "argument from nature" you have resurrected to try and back it up.

Since humans are capable of reason and judgement we are of course obliged to place ethical standards on our behaviours. The flaw in your argument is to assume that since morals are subjective, we need not have them. However ethics are based on logical assessments of society and our behaviours and are therefore not subjective. You could learn a lot by reading the philosophers who have been discussing these points for centuries, I recommend you begin with Peter Singer or Gary Franicone.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43…

Yes, morality does not play in the natural world. What humans view as "proof" that animals ethically behave like we do is because of biological drive not because of morals. For example they protect their young because that is a necessary biological act for preservation and continuation of the species, no more, no less. But there is very little if any grieving process involved if a pack or pride or herd member dies. Nor is the process of death something that they dwell on. A lion kills a gazelle, the herd moves to one side and life as it is goes on.

Humans have this unique talent of making things more complicated that they really are.

You are right. In nature there is no morality. There is just cause, effect, life, survival, instinct etc.

We as humans have evolved into a very intelligent species- we communicate highly in very advanced and complex ways.
We make structures, we create masterpieces, we make art and symphonies and architecture.

We make buildings and great novels and dedicate them to love.

What other wild animals do this?

None that are obvious immediately.
As humans, we have the intellect to know "right" from "wrong". We sometimes tease other kids in the playground and we know it's mean. We taunt others, we can be purposefully mean and purposefully kind. We can choose to be nice or be horrible and rude.

Most wild animals live on instinct and tha'ts it.

We are a highly evolved species.
When our mothers feel pain it hurts us. When we see someone crying we feel emotional.
We connect with other humans in emotions and feelings, not just verbally.

In this way, we as humans, can choose to do things that are compassionate, like giving food to hungry children, or choosing to not kill animals, or giving a blanket to a starving cold dog in the street.

It is a lower, less intelligent type of human that chooses to support a cruel practise- torturing and slowly killing animals, we know they are hoisted up by their heels when they're still alive and kicking the farmer while he hacks their legs off. We know this.
We can choose to not do it, and just eat plant foods, which we also know make our bodies healthier.

That is morality coming into play- whether we use out intelligence to do good things, or bad things.

Morality is a human concept,
but that hardly makes it fantasy-
our actions have consequences,
empirically and analytically,
and such a far-reaching question as our treatment of non-human animals certainly does have dozens of moral implications.

Morality is the view of right and wrong usually within a group of people. Seeing as eating meat is an act many humans engage in how can you say that it has nothing to do with humans? Your thinking is a bit backwards.

Eating meat is not immoral.

I'm so sorry that you have run into so many rude vegetarian/vegans that you've formulating this generalization about us all. Most v/v I know or know of try not to be so preachy.

I just kindly want to point out a few things regarding your argument. Forgive me if I sound a bit harsh.

"In nature morality is irrelevant."
Maybe it is, but how many of us actually live out in the wild without toilets? I'm sorry, but this point isn't really valid anymore - era-wise. It's also a very sad way to look at the world. Morality should never be irrelevant.

"[Meat] is part of the natural diet of human beings ever since we evolved."
Anthropologists say that while meat has been a part of the human diet, it's only been a very small part of the human diet. It's hard to kill animals when your only weapons are rocks or crummy muskets(O_O). It was much easier to forage or garden. Anyway, meat did not become such a huge part of our diet until the early 1950s when refrigerators were more common/affordable and there was an economic boom. I think we can agree that while meat has had a part in the human diet, it wasn't always so large.

"There is nothing wrong with eating meat."
This is where my personal morals must come in. I believe that unnecessarily killing animals for food is wrong. If you're on a desert island and the only thing to eat is a chicken, that's one thing. It's him/her or you, and I doubt the chicken will try to eat you. (O_O) But for me, it's not even the abuse in the factory farms that changed my diet, it's the fact that an animal was dying for my dinner, and as I researched the nutrition I found that it was completely unnecessary. Why should something have to die for me to eat when I can have beans (which I like better) instead? It was a total "duh" moment for me. :)

"Those who suggest that there is something wrong with eating meat eating are trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us."
I'm sorry you feel that way. O_o Suggesting something is wrong with that to impose my beliefs on you was not my intention at all.

"There are some studies that show plants can feel pain."
While plants do an amazing job responding to stimulus, they do not have a central nervous system, and as of yet I have found no scientific research claming that plants feel pain. If you happen to have a link, please share it. I would be interested in reading it. :)

"Killing plants for food is no different from killing animals for food."
I would say that there is a big difference if you think about it.

I don't know if you're having a bit of a dilemma yourself, or if someone just hacked you off, but I hope I helped you in some small way. Even if it was just to think that all vegetarians aren't all bad. :(

Vegan

You need to do research both on vegetarian philosophy & pain, plants feeling pain is a psuedoscience that is discredited by the science community. There is no supporting evidence that plants feel pain or even register anything, tropisms do not mean the plant is sentient or able to feel, merely that it is reacting towards favourable conditions.

Vegetarians try to not harm any potential sentient being which often in higher complex organisms is capable of pain too (defense mechanism + locomotion=escaping the source of discomfort). Life has to eat life, its our eco-system & how life is sustained on earth + has evolved. You wrongly assert however that this justifies bringing pain into another beings life. & fail to take into account that humans are so detached from nature.
Yes we are animals, yes we must eat life in some format to survive, that however has nothing to do with the ethics or ability to reason in man. To bring harm into another sentient beings life on any level (ie physical/emotional) has to be justified & so far the excuses you give are all equally applicable to cannibalism which i'm sure you disagree with

vegetarian
your arguement has a lot of holes in it

You're right.. morality is just a human construct. Also, morality differs greatly between societies and individuals. For example, you may think it's morally wrong to practice cannibalism, and you visit a society that practices cannibalism. Would you voice your disdain and tell them their practice is wrong? I hope not, because that would make you a hypocrite.

That said, we can all argue about what's right and wrong until we're all dead, but it won’t matter, since human constructs are ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme in the universe.