Lifestudies.org

Philosophical study of life, death, and nature

Home > Other Pages > Discussions > This page

 

 

Back to home

About this site

Discussion on the morality of eating meat and humans
Jul.6,2000 - Jul.21,2000 Edited by Masahiro Morioka (Profile)



  Moral meat eaters
  brent_silby
  7/6/00 7:37 pm

  I am new here. Thought I'd see what you all think about this.

  I've been thinking about the morality of eating
  meat and have decided that the issue can be

  divided into 3 seperate moral categories.

 

  1) People eat meat simply because they need to
  in order to survive. Whether they enjoy it or not

  is not the issue, the fact is that they need

  the proteins and iron etc that can only come

  from meat.

 

  2) People can get their protein and
  biological requirements from vegetables and

  dietry suppliments. We have the technology to

  fulfill our needs without eating meat. But people

  eat meat because they enjoy it.

 

  3) Number 2 applies, but people also experiment
  with meat from many different species. They will

  eat meat that they may not enjoy, simply to

  make a social statement. Eating the flesh of rare

  animals costs alot and signifies ones social

  status.

 

  Which category do you fit into?

  Is it right that we kill and consume animals? If we
  can morally justify that action, can we justify

  experimentation on animals if it benefits the

  human species?

 

  Brent Silby 2000.



Re: Moral meat eaters
masahiro_morioka
(41/M/Japan)

7/7/00 8:28 pm

  >Brent Silby

  Hello. Welcome to our club.
  As for me, I do not eat "meat" because I do not think it delicious. I eat fish and vegitables. I presume many of

  those who eat meat think "meat" is delicious. This may be the reason they eat. Morality of eating is a very

  difficult issue.

  Brent, do you eat fish, and vegitables? And what do you think about the morality of eating fish and /or
  vegitables? If you think eating meat is wrong and eating fish and/or vegitables is not wrong, what is the reason

  for the distinction?



Re: Moral meat eaters
brent_silby
7/7/00 10:30 pm

  Masahiro_Morioka,
  I eat fish and vegetables. I think there is no problem with eating vegetables, because they do not feel pain and

  are not conscious things -- as far as we know. Eating fish is more difficult to justify if one does not want to eat

  other meat for moral reasons. Fish are much simpler animals and perhaps do not suffer in the same way as

  other animals because they have such small brains. But, can we say they do not suffer at all? I am not sure. If

  we allow ourselves fish, then why not very small mammals. And if we can eat them, then how about larger

  mammals. This is a dangerous progression, and it is not very clear where it should stop. We surely do not want

  to eat *humans*. Where do we draw the line? Perhaps it is better to not eat any meat.

  Thankyou for responding to my post.

  Brent Silby.



Re: Moral meat eaters
masahiro_morioka
(41/M/Japan)

7/8/00 8:53 am

  >Brent Silby

  Thanks for your reply. You said "there is no problem with eating vegetables, because they do not feel pain and
  are not conscious things", hence , logically you should also say "there is no problem with eating comatose

  human patients, because they do not feel pain and are not conscious things."

  If eating comatose humans is dangerous, there must be other reasons for not eating, besides "pain" and
  "consciouness."



Re: Moral meat eaters
brent_silby
7/8/00 11:39 pm

  Hi Masahiro_Morioka

  Very good point. If it is alright to eat anything that does not suffer or feel pain, then it should be alright to eat a
  comatose patient. But we have to be certain that the unconscious patient does not feel pain -- who knows, the

  patient may feel pain but not be able to communicate it to us. Also, we have to be certain that the unconscious

  patient has no hope of recovering. Our theory should, thus, look like this: it is alright to eat anything that does

  not feel pain, and is not a conscious thinking thing, and has no chance whatsoever of becoming a conscious

  thinking thing.

  This may be better, but I suspect that people will still not accept that it is alright to eat an unconscious human.
  And yet they will eat other animals. Are people justified in placing a human life so far above other the lives of

  other animals?

  Brent Silby.



Re: Moral meat eaters
masahiro_morioka
(41/M/Japan)

7/8/00 11:58 pm

  >Brent Silby

  (1) OK, let us imagine a comatose patient, who were pronounced "brain dead", but the body is warm and fresh.
  This brain dead patient has no consciouness and never feel pain and has no chance of recovery (modern

  medicine says like this).

  So, your theory must be that it is not wrong to eat a brain dead comatose patient. Is this your theory?

  (2) Probably, many people who eat meat place the value of humans higher than those of animals. This is
  "speciesism", according to P.Singer and M.Tooley.



Re: Moral meat eaters
brent_silby
7/9/00 10:03 pm

  Masahiro Morioka wrote:<"(1) OK, let us imagine a
  comatose patient, who were pronounced "brain dead", but

  the body is warm and fresh. This brain dead patient

  has no consciouness and never feel pain and has no

  chance of recovery (modern medicine says like

  this).

  So, your theory must be that it is not wrong to eat a
  brain dead comatose patient. Is this your

  theory?">

  In *theory* it is not wrong to eat the patient, because there is no
  suffering. If the patient has no hope of recovering and is not conscious

  and cannot feel pain, then the patient is no different to a lump of animal

  flesh.

  I have to admit that I would NOT eat the patient. For some reason I would
  feel uncomfortable about eating the patient, and I think most other people

  would also feel uncomfortable. But if people feel uncomfortable about

  eating the flesh of the human patient, why do they not feel uncomfortable

  about eating the flesh of any other animal?

  Brent Silby.



Moral human eaters
masahiro_morioka
(41/M/Japan)

7/10/00 6:54 am

  >Brent Silby

  Well, you say that for some reasons you would feel uncomfortable about eating the patient, then, you should
  make clear the reasons why you feel that. I would like to know the additional *reasons*, because this is a very

  important point.

  ps. I will be out on a trip this week, my reply would be late, sorry.



Re: Moral human eaters
masahiro_morioka
(41/M/Japan)

7/16/00 12:21 am

  >Brent Silby

  Now I am back. I would like to know your ideas.



Re: Moral human eaters
brent_silby
7/18/00 7:19 pm

  My reasons for feeling strange about eating the comatosed human patient are irrational. They are the result of a
  lifetime of social programming, which cannot be easily overcome.

  Rationally there should be no difference between eating an unconscious, comatosed patient (so long as he/she
  was brain dead), and eating any other animal. Perhaps I should have the same problem with eating any life form.

  Brent Silby.



Re: Moral human eaters
masahiro_morioka
(41/M/Japan)

7/21/00 7:53 am

  >Brent Silby

  Do you think the irrational part of a human being should be overcome? or it be respected?



Re: Moral human eaters
pluckebaum
(21/M/Sacramento, CA)

 7/21/00 11:25 am

  perhaps we should clarify terms before answering masahiro morioka's question about rationality.

  by irrational, Brent, do you mean emotional, intuitive, both or perhaps something all together different?


Post a comment on this page / See what's already been said.