Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?
9
7
7
1
6
6
7
10
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Animals Have Feelings, Awareness and Preferences
Irrelevant
Humans, pigs and chickens are very different. However much of it comes down to the simple laws of nature. We, just like all the others peta has cited, are animals. We are omnivorous and utilize many of the same concepts that are found in other animal species in terms of diet.
In some cases, species have worked together to form their dietary chain. In other cases, the food chain is usually one-way. For our needs, animals serve a high degree of utility as both food and resources and are used within the laws of nature.
The key point to take away from this is that there are generally no laws of reciprocation between species. I have no expectation of a chicken reciprocating rights nor should I be expected to bestow a chicken with the rights of a human. In essence, the laws of man can not usurp the law of nature.
- sumwatt July 24, 2008 10:29AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Falacious
Any argument based on the law of nature is absurd on its face. We modify nature in every aspect of our lives for any number of reasons. Ultimately any decision on how to treat beings that are different from each other will involve some subjective values, but we can certainly work our way closer to the crux of the issue. For instance, do animals feel pain? Certainly they do. We don't doubt that other human beings feel pain the way we do, and the "lower" levels of our neural networks are very similar to those of animals. One might then go on to consider higher level functions, such as being able to look forward to a future event. These sorts of capabilities might be assigned arbitrary moral value, but we should at least be aware of these capabilities in order to decide whether or not they merit value. Would you say it is ok to kill a mentally retarded person if they were incapable of reciprocating rights? By your logic this would be morally permissible.
- ToddG
August 21, 2008 5:47PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not Falacious, but simply correct.
My comment isn't absurd. It's pointing to the relevant fact that man is a part of nature and the course of human discovery or adaptation is natural. That is unless you are a God, and not encumbered by the trappings of nature.
Note that I do mention that this is largely an issue of species and nature. While a mentally retarded person may not explicitly reciprocate rights, our species bestows the framework of rights onto other humans because the human species reciprocates those rights amongst ourselves. Whether the human is retarded or extremely intelligent is irrelevant. But let's flip your question on its head:
Is it morally and ethically permissible for a dog to kill retarded dog? If reciprocation is irrelevant, then all life on this planet must have a universal moral and ethical code that is above and beyond nature of which there is no evidence.
- sumwatt August 21, 2008 8:22PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ah. Simply correct.
It makes debating much easier when arguments are so conveniently titled. :-)
I'm afraid yours is a circular argument. "our species bestows the framework of rights onto other humans because the human species reciprocates those rights amongst ourselves." What? We give ourselves rights because we give ourselves rights? That doesn't help explain why we do it. Nor does it explain why we don't do it to other species. Your speciesist views remain unfounded. Much like racist and sexist views. Upon scrutiny, arguments do not successfully justify excluding any sentient beings from the scope of morality.
As for your question about the morality of dogs, your argument will only end up whittling down to "well they don't do it, so why should I?" This argument just doesn't hold. There are plenty of heinous acts performed by humans on other humans, but you'd never use that to justify a relative code of ethics. There is something above and beyond the laws of nature: logic and reason.
- mike
August 21, 2008 9:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Now I see...
...why you called it a fallacy. Your assumption is that I'm arguing the "appeal to nature".
However let me clarify my point: the appeal to nature is only fallacious if you can define what is unnatural. If everything, as a part of my original statement and argument assumes, there is no such thing as "unnatural", my point stands. I do understand the point of the fallacy but the fallacy itself is only as good as the expectation that nature and non-nature (or anti-nature) are both universal. The argument I use here is that our system of diet is derived from a system of reciprocation that is within the framework of nature.
- sumwatt August 21, 2008 8:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Regarding: But animals farm, hunt and eat meat...
You said, "We are omnivorous and utilize many of the same concepts that are found in other animal species in terms of diet."
No other animal creates intensive animal agriculture that produces global warming and is bad for their species health.
Moreover, we have the capacity to act ethically. It doesn't matter what other animals do and whether or not they follow our same moral code. Their behavior will never justify our behavior. In the same way that the school bully's existence isn't a good enough reason for you to become a bully, the fact that some animals farm, hunt, and eat other animals doesn't mean we should. It really is a bit like the old saying, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?" It doesn't matter what other people or animals do. What matters is you. your behaviors, and your conscience.
Unless there is no non-animal food source available, we are not justified in eating them.
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 8:59AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
reciprocating rights
You said, ". I have no expectation of a chicken reciprocating rights"
But in fact, a chicken would NEVER eat you. Never.
We're not talking about granting complete human rights to animals. We're talking about whether or not you should eat meat.
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 9:02AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.