Does the Vegetarian Trait affect anything besides food choices?
minidoxigirli:
Quote from: IgnorantBliss on 2009 July 05, 04:11:31
Quote from: minidoxigirli on 2009 July 04, 19:19:10
I'm in a Social and Moral Ethics class and we just read a bunch of essays about the morality of eating meat. One interesting opinion in one of the essays is that with rights comes responsibilities. Since we cannot hold animals accountable for their actions (aka jail and other punishments), then they do not have rights. I'm not saying I agree with this, just interesting food for thought.
That is an interesting theory, but what if we apply that to young children, or severely retarded or mentally ill grown-ups, who also may be judged not to be accountable for their actions. Do they not have rights, either, then? Was that discussed in the class? I'm thinking that theory has a giant loophole in it.
I don't remember what the ethicist said in response to that question, but I'm sure there was something. It's a common response to any issue of animal rights. I'm at my parents house right now, but when I get back home tonight or tomorrow I'll check the essay and tell you what it says.
Personally, I'm thinking that every philosophical theory is silly right now, because they all seem to have these giant loopholes in them. Also, it seems like you can make any decision and make it moral just by thinking enough about it. I prefer the moral egoist approach- if I think it's wrong, it's wrong. End of story. Apparently that doesn't work in an academic setting.
IgnorantBliss:
Quote from: minidoxigirli on 2009 July 05, 05:09:07
I don't remember what the ethicist said in response to that question, but I'm sure there was something. It's a common response to any issue of animal rights. I'm at my parents house right now, but when I get back home tonight or tomorrow I'll check the essay and tell you what it says.
Personally, I'm thinking that every philosophical theory is silly right now, because they all seem to have these giant loopholes in them. Also, it seems like you can make any decision and make it moral just by thinking enough about it. I prefer the moral egoist approach- if I think it's wrong, it's wrong. End of story. Apparently that doesn't work in an academic setting.
I was browsing through my little brother's high school philosophy book recently, but had to put it down pretty fast as I was getting frustrated with what to me seemed like mindless babble, and using an entire paragraph to say something that could have been condensed to one sentence. I don't know, maybe it's just me getting old and cranky :P.
Aaroc:
Quote from: Aquilegia on 2009 July 04, 08:44:18
Quote from: Aaroc on 2009 July 04, 07:50:36
... but the whole ethics thing doesn't appeal to me because I see no ethics when it comes to mistreating food.
Then I declare you food, tasty braincarrier. Your screaming and flailing and begging for mercy might be a little distressing, but... t's too much trouble to knock you out beforehand, anyway, so who cares?
Now c'mere. I'm hungry.
That's fine. Unfortunately for hungry you, I have the mental capacity to GTFO or otherwise defend myself when something that is hungry and wants to eat me is coming after me. That's why we don't eat things like tigers and bears.. they can defend themselves. I actually watched a show once about how tigers eat people in these little villages in India or somewhere in that area. I actually took great pleasure in finding out that some humans are still on the food chain.
Cows and chickens on the other hand are apparently too dumb to know better than to defend themselves. Granted, the cruel treatment of these poor dumb beasts is a little saddening, I suppose. Snot like they did anything to deserve such treatment that some industrial farmers put them through, but it doesn't tear me up enough to make me want to boycott meat. After all, it's just food.
ETA: Now I'm not saying I condone the mistreatment of foody animals, because I don't. They just taste too damn good for me to care whether their previous owner treated them properly or not. In a hypothetical situation where I had a cow and raised it for the sole purpose of killing and eating it, I would treat it properly, and make sure it was healthy and well fed, partly because I'm just not the type of person to needlessly mistreat an animal, and partly because I want my investment in this cow to have the best payoff in terms of good meat. Since I do not have the means to grow my own food, however, I must simply accept the fact that the industrial farmers out there are mistreating their harvestables. They taste good whether you mistreat them or not.
caterpillar:
Actually, one of the primary reasons that tigers are endangered is over hunting by humans. Not for the meat, but for the fur, and for the 'medicinal' properties of its penis. Also just for sport. They aren't really very good at defending themselves against humans with guns. The reason we don't eat animals like tigers is that they don't do all that well in captivity and could not be mass produced the way cows and chickens can.
Aquilegia:
Quote from: Aaroc on 2009 July 05, 07:21:57
That's fine. Unfortunately for hungry you, I have the mental capacity to GTFO or otherwise defend myself when something that is hungry and wants to eat me is coming after me.
That'll just make your brains taste better, oh you he-man you.
All your rattling on about how the typical domestic food beast isn't smart enough to defend itself shows very clearly you've not been around a healthy domestic food beast with its dander up. Note that 'lulled into a false sense of security and never saw it coming,' as per factory farming, doesn't count.
Quote from: Aaroc on 2009 July 05, 07:21:57
They taste good whether you mistreat them or not.
Oh, you poor, sad thing. Either you've never had properly raised meat, or your tastebuds are so shot you can't taste the difference.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page