Food is necessary. But since everyone is able to cut something out of their diets there is no particular food that humans absolutely have to eat out of necessity. It is a senseless, then, to say that corn is necessary and deer steak is not, since both are foods.
As for your other argument stating that by eating vegan helps you attain a morally higher ground as you are not involved in intentional harming or killing of such animals - so are meat eaters. Meat eaters don’t necessarily want to kill animals.
.I'm an animal lover myself, having taken up zoology as a side hobby
\Even the argument that deaths of animals in vegan agriculture are accidental, compared to the purposeful killing of an animal is flawed. Alright there can be a difference between intentionally stabbing someone to death and accidentally hitting someone with your car. Yes, the intentional murder is worse, but involuntary manslaughter is a crime too.
So why is involuntary manslaughter an offense when committed against a human, but involuntary animal slaughter is morally neutral?
That only makes sense if you believe that the death of an animal matters less than the death of a human.
heliona wrote:Ask away by all means. Unfortunately, TORC is very quiet at the moment, so there's not many people to come up with ways of explaining things better than me.
We, collectively, have 'killed the rabbit'
redrobot wrote:We, collectively, have 'killed the rabbit'
so a 10 year vegan is the same as a man who has bacon for breakfast. no. you are reasoning in absolutist terms. you are saying that because i am a little bit tainted (i have a linoleum floor and eat vegetables from agri business) all my efforts are worthless. do you seriously believe that?
Your arguments assume what they need to prove: namely that eating animals is antithetical to the laid back society of the hobbits. You haven't done so.
The antebellum South is mythologised as a laid back agrarian society, despite slavery.
You haven't even proved your underlying argument that it is wrong to eat animals.
Aravar wrote:There's that chap Wilko185. He's good on Tolkien scholarship. and I think he still posts occasionally.
redrobot wrote:The antebellum South is mythologised as a laid back agrarian society, despite slavery.
first ive heard of it.
redrobot wrote:You haven't even proved your underlying argument that it is wrong to eat animals.
i guess you have to ask yourself whether you think causing pain and death to sentient beings is wrong or not.
Watch/read Gone With the Wind, among others.
As I'm not a pacifist I don't think that causing pain and death to undoubtedly sentient beings is necessarily wrong.
You haven't even proved that animals are "beings" in any philosophical sense.
redrobot wrote:
and do i have to do that to win the argument? is that the level you live on? do you have to prove to yourself that your mother is a being before you go visit?
That does not make meat-eating 'wrong'.
redrobot wrote:That does not make meat-eating 'wrong'.
it is wrong if you do not believe in causing pain and death to other creatures. it is not wrong if you think that is ok. you think that is ok. this gives me a particular perspective on your personality that has been barred by the mods.
it is not "wrong".
Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests