Next Generation Emulation banner

When people feel sorry for farm animals

3K views 56 replies 21 participants last post by  _E_ 
#1 ·
http://www.themeatrix.com/
I could't care less how farm animals are treated I just want to see an intense discussion about weather animals have feelings here

I wonder when they would start feeling sorry for plants as well
 
#52 ·
Kane-Sama said:
>#3. Meat was fine for my Great Great Grandfather, Great Grandfather, Grandfather, and Father, its fine for me.

rape, pillage, murder, and general promiscuity was good enough for my antecedents. It's not for me. Nudity was good enough for them. It's not for me.
That, my friend, is a stupid arguement. While I'm a happy meat eater, if we never challenged our predecessors' beliefs, we'd still be living in hte trees.

I dont believe Great Great was living in trees. The point I am making is my line has lived to be 80+ and they have all eaten meats. I understand your point very well and agree with the text; I should of been clearer on that point thats all. It was all about age vs. sacrifice.
 
#53 ·
Elgar said:
I dont believe Great Great was living in trees. The point I am making is my line has lived to be 80+ and they have all eaten meats. I understand your point very well and agree with the text; I should of been clearer on that point thats all. It was all about age vs. sacrifice.
But this thread is not about the health benefits of vegetarianism, but the moral implications of eating meat (or better yet, the moral implications of mistreating farm animals). The point you made has nothing to do with the topic.
 
#55 ·
Boltzmann said:
But this thread is not about the health benefits of vegetarianism, but the moral implications of eating meat (or better yet, the moral implications of mistreating farm animals). The point you made has nothing to do with the topic.
Moral decisions based upon true health issues, we do not live in such a perfect world, neigh morality is based usually passed on via kin. Thus I made the assumption nutrition has something to do with the morality of eating meat. Of course like a Scientific educational book it takes place in a perfect world which in the RL I already knew before posting I was 80%+ wrong. :lol:
 
#56 ·
KanedA said:
dooh, people, meat is meat, if you won't eat it you can be eaten :p Mother Nature law :evil:
Clothes are clothes... that doesn't mean that it's ok to senselessly murder animals or to exploit people on the process of making it... same happens with meat. You could take the typical easy way of saying "meat is meat" and avoid all the moral implications or you could do what humans are supposed to do and dwell on the issue with the aims of making things better...
 
#57 ·
Boltzmann said:
You missed the point. It's the way you're choosing your priorities that is wrong.

I could just say that you're dicriminating against animals, on the sole basis that they're a genetically different from us. If you allow discrimination on a genetic basis, we could easily justify discrimination for people with Down's syndrome (since they have an extra chromossome) or other hereditary diseases.
The issue of whether animals deserve full moral status (or as much moral status as human beings) is far from solved. Just read treatises on modern ethics and you'll see it. For instance, read Animal Liberation , by Peter Singer. There are other books, but this is a good introduction.

As far as my ethical system goes, I think that all sentient life deserves the same moral status (regardless of whether they're humans, klingons or wookies). Now, whether other mammals should be considered as sentient beings is another question entirely, and I don't pretend to have an answer to it. As Oscar Wilde would say, I'm not young enough to know everything.

The problem with your approach is that you just assume, a priori, that animals are morally inferior to humans, and deserve less moral consideration. I'm not saying that they're our moral equals, either. I'm just saying that the question is tougher than it appears at first glance, and that "humans deserve atention first" needs a stronger justification than "we're of the same species".

Species-discrimination is the same as racial discrimination among humans; it just works in a different level.
It's funny how you omited my second paragraph when it replies exactly to what you have said :

エッリー said:
Priority should depend on the needs. Ofcourse, if we had more animals suffering than humans do, then we should give them attention first then take care of the humans - which isn't the case in our modern day world.
And speaking about species discrimination. I take it that you have no problems experimenting on human species just like how tests are carried out on mice and rats these days ?

Yours,
-Elly
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top