Advertisement

Is it moral to eat animals?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Plant Muncher, Sep 1, 2017.

  1. Plant Muncher

    Plant Muncher Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    How does one approach an essay question like this from a philosophical perspective? Any suggestions. Apparently, biology, sociology, and behavioral perspectives are not permitted.
     
  2. Nashorn101

    Nashorn101 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2017
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan Newbie
    I do not think consuming animals is a moral issue, but more of an objective issue, on the basis that large scale production of animals meant for profit and exploitation is a disgusting practice that apparently people just don't care about.

    On the other hand, I acknowledge that countless native tribes from across the world have historically supplemented their diet of grains and fruits by consuming animals. As I understand it, those people had a much greater appreciation of animals' lives than we as a society have today.

    Today, most consumers are completely detached from where their steak has come from. They don't know about the uncomfortable conditions that cow or pig or chicken had to bear for the few months / years of life that it had; if people don't ever want their dogs or cats to live in discomfort, then why are "agricultural animals" treated any differently?

    This is the philosophy that I hold as reason for me going Vegan a few months ago. If every single "agricultural animal" was treated like a family member, just like a family dog or cat, besides the fact that it will eventually be slaughtered, but slaughtered in an environment where the animal in question has no idea as to what is going to happen to it nor will it feel a thing when it is slaughtered, then I personally cannot detest this practice, as I cannot control the fact that some people like the taste of meat more than the idea of not ever killing a living creature.

    This is just my own philosophy on the matter!
     
  3. Mark Mywordz
    Feuding

    Mark Mywordz Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    157
    Ratings:
    +29 / 3 / -5
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan Newbie
    This goes to the heart of ethics itself. You would have to read hundreds of books before you could answer this adequately and even then you might arrive at the conclusion that the question cannot in all honesty be adequately answered.
    Would this help? http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/
    Of course most people have a gut feeling that eating animals is good or bad but most people cannot really justify their opinion in a way that would satisfy most philosophers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Rory17

    Rory17 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2017
    Messages:
    67
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -1
    Hi.
    I do not think it is moral to eat animals unless absolutely necessary. I go on ethics of no unnecessary violence, the key word there being "unnecessary". I can justify a human killing an animal humanely in order to eat the meat, if in a situation in which eating the meat is absolutely necessary for the human to survive. To all meat-eaters who would say things like "well, animals like tigers and lions kill and eat other animals", that is nature. The lions and the tigers don't know any better. They just kill to eat meat in order to survive.
    For all meat-eaters who would justify humans' raising and consumption of animals as "the cycle of life", this is not the natural "cycle of life". It is the human-made cycle of life. The system of factory farming is not natural. The modern system of slaughter is only a tiny bit natural, based on the fact that humans would, perhaps, kill to eat in nature, like when we were cavemen (and cavewomen). Other than the actually act of killing, it is unnatural. Unnatural, human-made tools and machines are used, and it is not like the natural way that a predator would pursue and kill an animal. These animals are not pursued, do not lead natural lives and stand only a very small, 1-2% chance of escaping.
    To meat-eaters who would say that humans are natural meat-eaters, that may be true, but we do not have to eat meat in order to survive anymore. We also have the intellect and the knowledge, not to mention the amount of vegan foods available, to make a kinder choice.
    To the meat-eaters who say that the animals are bred to be eaten and would not have been born in the first place if not to be raised for meat, being bred to be eaten does not change the fact that they are still animals. A farm-bred chicken has just the same intellect and emotional capabilities as a "pet" chicken. To say that eating chickens, lambs and cattle is justified because they are bred to be eaten is at least somewhat comparable to saying that, because some of the slaves were bred to be sold again into slavery, slavery was justified (a note to any modern slaves and/or anti-modern slavery people who may read this: This is about old-fashioned slavery. I do not have adequate knowledge about modern slavery to comment on modern slavery. Apologies if I offended or upset anyone). Are dog-fighting and bullfighting justified by the fact that the animals are often bred for these practices?
    For those who would comment that they like eating meat, liking something does not make it justifiable. If a person were to go around killing people's companion cats and dogs and said that they liked it and that they liked the flavour, would this be justified?
    For most people in our society, eating meat is unnecessary and wrong. We do not generally need to eat meat anymore. Except for those of us that must consume animals and/or animal products in order to survive, it is time to start moving on. It is time to start ditching cruel traditions. It is time to phase out meat, dairy, eggs and maybe even honey.
    Thank you for reading.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Mark Mywordz
    Feuding

    Mark Mywordz Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    157
    Ratings:
    +29 / 3 / -5
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan Newbie
    Hi Rory
    I agree with everything you have written. But you have not really addressed Plant Muncher's question: How does one approach an essay question like this from a philosophical perspective?
    From a philosopher's point of view a carnivore's diet is exactly as justifiable as a vegan diet. In this sense philosophy is of little use. BUT most philosophers are also human beings (as far as we know) and, as such, they too need guidance in deciding how to live their lives. In essence I think they all make a leap of faith (much like a religious leap of faith) and they opt for one of a number of principles to help them decide whether to eat meat etc. or not.
     
  6. Donald

    Donald Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Messages:
    21
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegetarian
    Would you eat your pet dog or cat? No! Of course not! Why then is it okay i so many peoples minds to eat other animals? Raising cattle takes many many more gallongs of water than raising food crops. Vegetarianism is more sustainable!
     
  7. Plant Muncher

    Plant Muncher Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Pets are by definition not food sources. Although, in parts of Asia, puppy is a delicacy. Point being, one man's pet is another man's fine eating. Then in India, cows are considered sacred. In the U.S. cows are what we purchase in drive-thru fast-food joints. Bambi is a beloved children's character. Bambi is also the same animal being hunted right now in places like Minnesota during deer season. Pigs are some of the smartest animals on the planet. They are also being served in any breakfast restaurant you walk into.

    Again, the point is that we have a complicated relationship with animals, food, pets, and how we treat each of those things. Are you right? Are they wrong? Think about this. If the entire world stopped eating beef tomorrow, the cattle population of the world would plummet to nearly zero. Maybe not in India. :)
     
  8. Vegan Dogs

    Vegan Dogs Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    right well found you a page you can pick the ones you want to focus on...and copy just a few of those that interested me...

    Philosophical view on veganism


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

    Philosophical and legal approaches[edit]

    Overview[edit]

    Further information: Consequentialism and Deontological ethics


    Martha Nussbaum, Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, is a proponent of the capabilities approach to animal rights.

    The two main philosophical approaches to animal rights are utilitarian and rights-based. The former is exemplified by Peter Singer, and the latter by Tom Regan and Gary Francione. Their differences reflect a distinction philosophers draw between ethical theories that judge the rightness of an act by its consequences (consequentialism/teleological ethics, or utilitarianism), and those that focus on the principle behind the act, almost regardless of consequences (deontological ethics). Deontologists argue that there are acts we should never perform, even if failing to do so entails a worse outcome.



    Cogito ergo sum[a] is a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suisin his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed.[1] It appeared in Latin in his later Principles of Philosophy. As Descartes explained, "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt...." A fuller form, penned by Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes’s intent: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"). The concept is also sometimes known as the cogito

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum



    Descartes (pronounced Deck Art) was a French philosopher and mathematician whose articulate reasoning about the nature of animals was and is still widely held by many people, to the detriment of animals.
    [​IMG]
    Descartes (1596 - 1650) maintained that animals cannot reason and do not feel pain; animals are living organic creatures, but they are automata, like mechanical robots. Descartes held that only humans are conscious, have minds and souls, can learn and have language and therefore only humans are deserving of compassion.

    Descartes is widely interpreted asphilosophising that animals are mechanical robots incapable of thinking or feeling pain. An alternative view is that he did not in his heart feel this about animals. I leave it to Descartes scholars to elucidate. See Cottingham (1978): Philosophy 53. A Brute to the Brutes.

    Unfortunately for animals, science adopted his view. Scientists maintained that animals are like unfeeling robots up to and for most of the 20th century, and some 21st century scientists still hold on to this idea more or less. Under Descartes' view the exploitation of animals cannot be a wrong, for you cannot harm things, like robots or sacks of potatoes, which do not possess thoughts, feelings or a sense pain.

    The philosopher and mathematician, Pythagoras (c. 580–c. 500 BCE), urged respect for animals, believing that human and nonhuman souls were reincarnated from human to animal, and vice versa.[14] Against this, Aristotle (384–322 BCE), student to the philosopher Plato, argued that nonhuman animals had no interests of their own, ranking them far below humans in the Great Chain of Being. He was the first to create a taxonomy of animals; he perceived some similarities between humans and other species, but argued for the most part that animals lacked reason (logos), reasoning (logismos), thought (dianoia, nous), and belief (doxa).[10]

    Theophrastus (c. 371 – c. 287 BCE), one of Aristotle's pupils, argued that animals also had reasoning (logismos), he opposed eating meat on the grounds that it robbed them of life and was therefore unjust.[15][16] Theophrastus did not prevail; Richard Sorabji writes that current attitudes to animals can be traced to the heirs of the Western Christian tradition selecting the hierarchy that Aristotle sought to preserve.[10]

    Plutarch (1 C. A.D.) in his Life of Cato the Elder comments that while law and justice are applicable strictly to men only, beneficence and charity towards beasts is characteristic of a gentle heart. This is intended as a correction and advance over the merely utilitarian treatment of animals and slaves by Cato himself.[17]

    Tom Beauchamp (2011) writes that the most extensive account in antiquity of how animals should be treated was written by the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry (234–c. 305 CE), in his On Abstinence from Animal Food, and On Abstinence from Killing Animals.
     
  9. Vegan Dogs

    Vegan Dogs Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    in a nutshell...my view is that Decartes was wrong and stupid to refuse to see animals can suffer and feel equally like humans...so ? being wrong his "i think therefore i am" applies to animals.

    since that alone gives "rights" to animals...we arrive straight away at Francione. animal rights. moral duty to recognise.
     
  10. Forest Nymph
    Jaded

    Forest Nymph Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    507
    Location:
    Northern California
    Ratings:
    +218 / 1 / -11
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    From a Christian perspective it could be argued that the original plan for mankind in the Garden of Eden was veganism (or vegetarianism) because of Genesis 1:29-30 and this is what Adam and Eve had the freedom to eat before "the fall" - this suggests to me that eating meat is a morally "fallen" state.

    This is reinforced by the book of Daniel in the Old Testament, where Daniel is told by God to eat nothing but vegetables and refuse the king's meat and rich foods, and Daniel and his men obey God, and they are stronger and more fit than the king's men.

    In Isaiah, a major prophetic book of the Old Testament (it's the one where Jesus' birth and crucifixion are prophesized) Isaiah says in God's kingdom that the lion shall lay down with the lamb, that the child should play with an asp without harm to either one, and that there will be "no bloodshed on My Holy Mountain" which again, indicates that the perfect or idealized state is either vegetarian or vegan, because eating meat is impossible in a place with no bloodshed where there is no violence even among animals.

    In Romans and Thessolonians, in the New Testament, Paul admonishes the different churches not to fight over their diets - he claims some ate vegetables for God while others ate meat (vegetarianism was common among early Christians, sort of like how it's found among Buddhists and Hindus in Asia) ....HOWEVER, Paul continues on to say "but if anything I do causes my brother to stumble (sin) then I shall never eat meat again."

    Historically speaking, some of the saints were proven to be or were probably vegetarian, like St. Francis of Assisi and St. Martin de Porres, who are both patron saints of animal rights and wildlife.

    The Orthodox church demands near-veganism during the season of Lent, and you'll find a wealth of plant-based recipes which contain no animal products in Greek and Russian Orthodox Lenten recipe books....the exception is that the Greek Orthodox usually consume shellfish like mussels or clams on "feast days" (like Sunday) while abstaining from any other animal products during the week for 40 days and nights.

    In the Roman Catholic church, it was considered compulsory to give up meat FOR THE ENTIRE SEASON OF LENT (40 days) and practice lacto-vegetarianism or pescatarianism, up until the 20th century. Because of modern industrial trends, the RCC lifted this to say that only Fridays are meat-free for Roman Catholics during Lent, but some traditional Catholics argue that this is wrong....in fact traditional Catholics usually don't eat meat on ANY Friday throughout the entire year, and not at all during the season of Lent.

    The word "carne" in Latin literally means flesh, rather than meat, and devout Catholics are encouraged to avoid any carnal sin.

    It's ironic because American Protestants in particular love to say that Jesus told them they could eat anything they wanted without consequence - but that's not quite true. He simply said it's not what goes into the body that causes one to sin, but what is in one's heart. So it's not food itself, but the evil associated with it, which would make vegan philosophy soundly compatible with Christianity. Furthermore, I've noticed a lot of Protestants (at least in America) like to overlook the verse in the New Testament where Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. This suggest the "rules" didn't change at all as protestants like to argue, but that the interpretation of love is the only way things changed after the time of Christ. For this reason Catholic churches are much more similar to Judaism than Protestant churches, for the most part.

    Speaking of Judaism, Israel has more vegans per capita than any nation on earth.

    All of this put together suggests a moral argument for at the very least not eating meat and treating animal's humanely - whether that suggests veganism or merely vegetarianism would be more of the crux of the Judeo-Christian debate.

    In fact, some Jewish scholars and Gnostics actually argue that Jesus was a vegetarian, and that word for "kelp/seaweed" was mistranslated to "fish" incorrectly somewhere along the way.

    You can also look at the Roman Catholic Catechism on the 5th Commandment - Thou Shalt Not Kill. Roman Catholics take the 5th commandment very seriously (which is why they are pro-life, among other things) and extend "killing" to suicide, self-abuse from drugs or excess alcohol, and gluttony. Meat eating could be included in "gluttony" if one wished to argue the point. I do know that some Christians - Catholic and Protestant alike - who are vegan argue that the 5th commandment of Thou Shalt Not Kill implicitly means thou shalt not kill any living thing, human or animal, unless it's in self-defense.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Rainey
    Creative

    Rainey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    Of course it is not moral - this is 2017 and it is barbaric to kill and eat an animal. Every life counts on this earth, humans should respect this.
     
  12. Vegan Dogs

    Vegan Dogs Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    st francis and wolves groenendael dog feja.jpg
    that is a brilliant summary...i think u only left out the dalai lama who eats veal....not my favorite person anymore. budhism in theory respects even WORMS as in the film with brad pitt...7 years in tibet. and st francis the patron saint of all animals would TURN IN HIS GRAVE to know as I do that CHURCHES IN ASSISI in ITALY TUSCANY even tho they do have air conditioned carparks safe to leave dogs in the extreme heat DO NOT ALLOW DOGS IN ASSISI CHURCHES in just a few years ago visit of me and my dogs there...PLENTY photos of that visit done...and...i yelled at an admin person in France one day in a village where i went looking at the paintings in a catholic church during the day no one in there but my 2 dogs and i...this not priest yelled at me..said i was OFFENDING GOD to have my dogs in there....i SPUN round to face him and replied with teeth barred...YOU are an offense to GOD to INSULT HIS CREATIONS ! YOU have driven the people out of this church it is EMPTY and you DARE ADDRESS ME LIKE THAT ? BACK OFF ! GO TO HELL where i will follow you to carry on this discussion if you like ! ooh lala...i spoke all that in FRENCH of course...found my blog page...http://www.belgische-herdershond.com/italia.htm ps that photo is of st francis in a town near assisi with the WOLF OF GUBBIO...Gubio is a near Assisi town. the story is...this wolf pestered a village until St Francis had a word with him then everyone lived happily ever after. The Black Dog in the photo is my female dog a Vegan dog called FEJA or FEE NOIRE DE LA VALLEE DES SORTILEGES a Belgian Shepherd Groenendael...yep...we humans turned wolves into protectors not killers of sheep...that dog...would DIE defending her flock...as she has proven...even tho not dead i add...she stood up to wild boar to defend me...and sat watching sheep all day for days on end to protect them with no training for that needed from me. she knew. her job was to protect the weak.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Vegan Dogs

    Vegan Dogs Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    [​IMG]
    the larger same breed dog...the biggest belgian shepherd in the world i add...also vegan of course...is my male...FALCON FERGUS DAKOTA called FALCON for short.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Forest Nymph
    Jaded

    Forest Nymph Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    507
    Location:
    Northern California
    Ratings:
    +218 / 1 / -11
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    Hello Vegan Dogs,

    Thank you for your response. That's really a shame about the person telling you it was an offense to God to have dogs in the church. As far as I know the position of the Catholic church is that animals have souls and also join us in heaven.

    I also did not know about the Dalai Llama eating veal. I thought he was vegetarian or even vegan.

    I do know Jains are considered to be truly vegan in the sense that they even try to avoid killing insects whenever they can. They believe any intentional taking of life is against God.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Forest Nymph
    Jaded

    Forest Nymph Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    507
    Location:
    Northern California
    Ratings:
    +218 / 1 / -11
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    I was looking around and I also found that St. Francis of Paola who came after St. Francis of Assisi, had an order of friars called Minims who were required to be vegan. St. David of Wales was also remembered to be vegan, and the patron saint of vegans and vegetarians.

    There's also apparently a group called Catholic Concern for Animals which I just found out about today.



    As well as finding a prayer which can be prayed as a novena for all animals or a specific companion animal:

    "Saint Francis of Assisi, for our Animal Friends

    Heavenly Father, our human ties with our friends of other species is wonderful and special gift from You. We now ask You to grant our special animal companions your Fatherly care and healing power to take away any suffering they have. Give us, their human friends, new understanding of our responsibilities to these creatures of Yours. They have trust in us as we have in You; our souls and theirs are on this earth together to give one another friendship, affection, and caring. Take our heartfelt prayers and fill Your ill or suffering animals with healing Light and strength to overcome whatever weakness of body they have.

    (Here mention the names of the animals needing prayer).

    Your goodness is turned upon every living thing and Your grace flows to all Your creatures. From our souls to theirs goodness flows, touching each of us with the reflection of Your love. Grant to our special animal companions long and healthy lives. Give them good relationships with us, and if You see fit to take them from us, help us to understand that they are not gone from us, but only drawing closer to You. Grant our prayer through the intercession of good St. Francis of Assisi, who honored You through all Your creatures. Give him the power to watch over our animal friends until they are safely with You in eternity, where we someday hope to join them in giving You honor forever. Amen. "
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Vegan Dogs

    Vegan Dogs Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    hija
    hija forest nymph well it was as i said a shock to me about the dalai lama eating veal

    but it is true...it is reported that he claims it is on health grounds

    with no details of course

    that is pure bs of course

    whenever anyone says...have to eat animals for special health needs...it is bs

    because of course nothing in veal protein fat vitamins etc cannot be provided by plants...meat flesh is just processed plants as we know

    and meat is the most difficult thing to digest for any animal

    so it makes no sense

    he eats it simply out of a liking of the taste and habit

    if there were no baby cows...would he die ? would he get sick ? of course not it is pure bs

    so i lost respect for him bigtime

    he is a leader of a budhist faith that in principle respects all animal life ....that film 7 tyears in tibet even tho slated by the critics for bad austrian accent of brad pitt which i didnt mind personally he is so gorgeous doesnt matter how he speaks to me wink wink

    ooh nights in white satin musci playing as i type...lovely song...cant recall who wrote it...letters witten...always meaning to send...

    anyway back to jainism

    that is the purest respect of life of all religions i think

    plants are life so jainists say minimal consumption...

    each according to his need not his greed principle

    plants may have life

    no nervous system of course

    but they sense things

    and are alive

    they may well feel pain too

    so jainists say..minimalism...of destruction of any life

    oh back to the original issue...that catholic church in france...adding ...at another same country same religion church one xmas i was outside in the lovely lights of xmas lights and white snow with my black devil dogs listening to the lovely music of xmas night inside the church service going on

    at the end of the service...the priest came out...saw my dogs and i ...came to us and i said what lovely music it was...he said...you should have come in

    the catholic church generally is a bit ambivalent about animals and souls...cannot grasp the nettle so to speak...this current pope has gone further than any before him...

    but this current pope is disliked by many traditionalists of course and on taht point...i had a long discussion in fact with a priest about this...

    he agreed with me...there is no evidence that jesus ate meat or even fish in the bible.

    the feeding of the 5 thousand with fish...could have meant food...the word in translation of meat food fish in aramaic or whatever the lingos used for the texts are ambivalent...even in genesis the old testament...the bit where god says...and i give you all the plants of the earth as FOOD is sometimes translated as MEAT.

    after the fall...god did allow eating of meat...after the flood there was no vegetation..but he said...there will be a reckoning...every living person will have to give an account of why they took a life

    it was only in extreme necessity therefore that killing and consumption of animals was to be the norm
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Vegan Dogs

    Vegan Dogs Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    I have to update my page greatly on this subject...it would be good to use stuff here in fact...

    this is a major help to veganism...if via this we could UNITE the religions of the world..

    i feell...it IS the KEY

    http://vegan-information.com/Veganism_Religion_Catholicism.html

    the reckoning text is missing...this is what I must add.
    THERE WILL BE A RECKONING...that expression was in the film COLD MOUNTAIN spoken by aussi actress nicole kidman I recall. After the Fall and the Flood there was no plant life to eat on the earth...so it was exceptionally allowed to kill to survive...but this was to be the exception not the norm. We are not on desert islands. Humans were given responsibility "dominion" means responsibility NOT a green light to KILL at will for no good reason.

    • “You shall not kill.” ~ Exodus 20:13 & Deuteronomy 5:17

    “Then God said to Noah, “Go forth from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring forth with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh -birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth – that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth.” So Noah went forth, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. And every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves upon the earth, went forth by families out of the ark. Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man.” (Genesis 8:15-20)

    “The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man.“ (Genesis 8:2-5)

    God goes on to make His Rainbow Covenant with all His creatures – human and non-human and He repeats no less than 7 times: “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.” (Genesis 8:17) “And the LORD said to Moses, “Say to Aaron and his sons, and to all the people of Israel, This is the thing which the LORD has commanded. If any man of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp and does not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as a gift to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people…If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people(!) For the life of the flesh (of living beings) is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” (Leviticus 17: 1-4, 10-11)

    8:17) aa1 the wolf and lamb - Copy.jpg genesis-1-29.jpg lion lamb and child future.jpg pope.jpg st francis.jpg wolf and lamb isaiah.jpg aa1 the wolf and lamb - Copy.jpg genesis-1-29.jpg lion lamb and child future.jpg pope.jpg st francis.jpg wolf and lamb isaiah.jpg aa1 the wolf and lamb - Copy.jpg genesis-1-29.jpg lion lamb and child future.jpg pope.jpg st francis.jpg wolf and lamb isaiah.jpg aa1 the wolf and lamb - Copy.jpg genesis-1-29.jpg lion lamb and child future.jpg pope.jpg st francis.jpg wolf and lamb isaiah.jpg aa1 the wolf and lamb - Copy.jpg genesis-1-29.jpg lion lamb and child future.jpg pope.jpg st francis.jpg wolf and lamb isaiah.jpg
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2017
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  18. brownmetalhead
    Question

    brownmetalhead Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2018
    Messages:
    24
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan
    For a theoretical perspective's not in sociology or biology, i think all you're left with is religious and legal. Gary Francione is a legal scholar on animal rights and is huge o the animal rights movement (abolitionist). He'd be a great start. As for religion, you can pick pretty much any as eating meat isn't really a prerequisite for any religion I'm aware of.
     
  19. winston10

    winston10 Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2018
    Messages:
    25
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0
    Lifestyle/Diet:
    Vegan Newbie
    If it goes against your own personal morality, then don't eat animals. This is all you need to understand, you don't need to try to figure out if it's moral in a larger sense or for others. If it doesn't feel right to you then don't do it. Doing so will make you feel like a hypocrite on a subconscious level and will lower your opinion of yourself.
     
  20. Consistency
    No Mood

    Consistency Active Member Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2018
    Messages:
    116
    Ratings:
    +21 / 4 / -3
    To me it is only moral to eat animals if:

    1) The animals have the freedom to thrive independently of humans and defend themselves in case of being attacked.

    2) Whichever human(s) wants to eat meat should witness and/or take the life of an animal themselves without modern weapons. Fair fight. No meat to those who didn't witness.

    3) It is required for absolute survival.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice