Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA
Your reason for eating meat is the main one I think meat-eaters have: taste. At least you are honest, Freebase.
I see the debate over vegetarianism vs. eating animals as a debate over values. Do you value the lives of animals because you care about the animals for their own sake? Or, do you simply value yourself and your tastebuds? I answer with the former; you answer quite clearly with the latter.
|
I value the lives of animals as a natural, balanced system of life that supplements other life and vice-versa, as it is naturally intended. I also value plant life in the same regard. I find Broccoli to be the tastiest vegetable on earth. Does it feel pain? I don't know. And I'm sure if 10 years from now scientists figure out that they do, I'd still eat it, as would you. Because it is most certainly not a matter of values when it comes to survival.
I think that it is a matter of balance when it comes to how we treat the equilibrium of our natural world and that we must maintain that balance, but pain and suffering was not, and never will be, a factor when it comes to the natural balance of life and its detrimental continuity. Pain is a defense motivator first and foremost that all animals share, including us. But it is NOT a value card, otherwise our values would be a universal aspect of nature and all animals would be herbivores.
Our values are a result of our intelligence and our culture, and while a lot of our values are important to us as a civilized society, the ability for us to "understand" pain we are inflicting on animals when we kill them to consume them doesn't make our natural inclination and makeup for their consumption "wrong" in absolutely any natural sense.
As long as we maintain the balance of nature, then we are doing as nature intended. And if nature intended us, then our natural inclinations are intended.
Quote:
Here's a question for you, Freebase, and others who eat animals. What qualities would an animal (fish, bird, sheep or pig or cow, etc.) need to have to cause you to *not* want to eat these animals? Pigs are very intelligent, so I assume it isn't a lack of intelligence of the animals that makes you feel they are "fair game" for being eaten Pig Video Arcades Critique Life in the Pen
If a livestock animal were able to say to you, "NO!" would this stop you from eating her?
I care about animals because I know they have feelings and I know they can suffer. I have pondered for a long time if it is possible to "get" other people to care about animals when these people just don't have the feelings there. I still don't know the answer. However, I think the more information people have about a subject, the more informed their decision will be. I can't change people's feelings, but I can try to inform them.
|
Well, I'd have to say that I wouldn't eat my own kind unless it was absolutely necessary for survival. All others that I could take down = fair game. It's kind of absurd to postulate how you would react if an animal was as intelligent as you in a decision to eat it, since it's not nor will it ever be in context with humans. Not to mention that it has absolutely no bearing on the layout of the nature of survival.
I wouldn't eat my cat, because I like him and enjoy his company.
I wouldn't eat my neighbors' cat because he likes it and enjoys its company.
But pain and suffering has nothing to do with it. It's a personal decision based on preference and, in most cases, laws.
You say you care about animals because they have feelings and suffer, but I don't see you campaigning to protest wild animals behaving in their natural habitat. I don't understand why you have a problem with us doing it when it's going to happen regardless. Maybe you'd feel better because you wouldn't have anything to blame on yourself, but it wouldn't change a thing as far as pain and suffering goes.
If you'd rather just be oblivious to what's going on in the wild, well you can do that just fine while you eat a steak. Your choice.