Who Said We Can't Kill The Animal

So what do you retrieve. If you lot would feel terrible for killing an brute or wouldn't even be able to do it at all, should you consume it (subsequently someone else has killed it)? We are all faced with this every twenty-four hour period: animals are slaughtered in abattoirs away from our view and packaged for the supermarket and and so do not fifty-fifty look like animals anymore and we can remove ourselves from the brutality of it, and push button dorsum our cognitive dissonance.

Is it only too much a role of our every day lives and also normalised to retract it without science intervening (eastward.g. lab made meat)? Have our civilisation and ability to reverberate become totally at odds with our instinctive and biological needs? Should we see our moral discomfort every bit a by-production of our intelligence and reflectiveness, and not something to pay likewise much attending to. Isn't there a theory that the practise of cooking our meat was a huge step in our evolutionary development towards becoming intelligent, self-aware, social beings, and if nosotros were herbivores nosotros never would have developed this far (cooking meat made us intelligent, at present nosotros are intelligent we are not certain nosotros should consume meat)...Or is our sense of morality the most defining part of our thought of beingness human and humane...and therefore should never be ignored and rationalised away?

But eat the damn chicken nuggets.

people are normalised into eating meat depending on the order and culture they are born into. if everybody effectually them is consuming meat, even if they may acknowledge the practise to be wrong, it is difficult for them to refrain seeing as they have been socialised that way, hence why the bike of eating meat continues.

within my family unit'southward culture, although i was built-in in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, it is not adequate or fifty-fifty normal to eat meat, therefore i have never tried it. the thought of eating meat hence seems quite peculiar and immoral to me, simply because this is entirely confronting the norm i've experienced during my upbringing. withal a lot of my friends who eat meat tin can acknowledge the harsh atmospheric condition the animals are brought upwardly in, (although this is besides the aforementioned for vegetarian products such as milk, i must say) just find it difficult to stop eating it when they are surrounded by it everyday, and also because they practise quite enjoy the gustatory modality.

If you can't build a house practice y'all deserve to alive in it? Follows the same logic.
The whole point of living in a society is to contribute to it besides every bit reap the rewards (e.g. not having to hunt for food).

I would happily kill an animal for nutrient so meh.

Should we also forbid people from eating veg if they didn't harvest it themselves?

(Original postal service by (づ￣ ³￣)づ)
I would happily kill an animate being for food so meh.

Should we also forbid people from eating veg if they didn't harvest it themselves?

1. Imagine a living breathing animal pulsating and writhing in your grasp...you would feel fine to break information technology's neck/chop it's head off/smash it's head with a stone, and feel it'southward blood pour down your hands seeing information technology twitching and hearing it make tortued, pained sounds equally the last bit of life drains out? I am non maxim I don't believe someone could practice that, but I am wondering if you accept really thought near what information technology would be like to kill animal. If yous have, and the answer is nevertheless aye, and then alright then. As well, really doing information technology rather than just thinking about it, could exist quite different.

2. You could likewise say, should nosotros forestall people from living in houses they did not build, or from wearing shoes they did not make, or reading a book they did non write?? I am non saying people should only partake in things they have participated in the making or proliferation of, merely that this is a question of morality for a lot of people. It'south not about did they practise it themselves, merely could they, morally speaking, practise it.

Sounds similar an EPQ question to me.

(Original post by Lapis.Lazuli)
If y'all tin't build a house do you deserve to live in it? Follows the same logic.
The whole point of living in a society is to contribute to it as well as reap the rewards (e.g. not having to chase for food).

These. ^

I go what killing an animal would be like, and I'd still be more than happy to kill ane if it meant nutrient on the tabular array for me and my family.

This is a moral tin can you lot not a are you physically capable or skilled to do it.

Hence the edifice a firm instance is not authentic.

(Original post by Lapis.Lazuli)
If you lot can't build a house do you lot deserve to live in it? Follows the aforementioned logic.
The whole betoken of living in a lodge is to contribute to it too equally reap the rewards (east.chiliad. not having to chase for food).

No, it doesn't follow the same logic. Non existence able to build a house is about not having the knowledge, skills, money, materials to practice information technology. If you had said - "the materials used to brand modernistic houses are grown, sourced, manufactured, and bought in enviornmentally and socially unethical ways that you lot probably wouldn't carry out yourself, and if and so isn't immoral to be living in something y'all would never have been able tobuild yourself, because of the moral conlict involved " ...then perchance that would exist equatable to my question. I am talking about the moral ability to do something - whether information technology would prevarication also heaviily on your conscience to be able to do it yourself, not near whether you're physically, financially, intellectually etc. able to do it.

Aye we reap the rewards of working together in a society. Simply I'thousand request if you weren't morally able to carry out an action, should you exist reaping the rewards from others doing information technology for you.

(Original post by Bearding)
No, it doesn't follow the same logic. Not being able to build a house is about not having the noesis, skills, money, materials to practice it. If you had said - "the materials used to make modern houses are grown, sourced, manufactured, and bought in enviornmentally and socially unethical means that you probably wouldn't carry out yourself, and if so isn't immoral to be living in something you would never have been able tobuild yourself, because of the moral conlict involved " ...and so maybe that would be equatable to my question. I am talking nearly the moral power to practice something - whether it would lie likewise heaviily on your conscience to be able to exercise it yourself, not about whether you lot're physically, financially, intellectually etc. able to do it.

Yes nosotros reap the rewards of working together in a society. Just I'm asking if you weren't morally able to bear out an activeness, should you exist reaping the rewards from others doing it for you.

Since you desire to focus on morality, a amend question would be:
Should people praise war veterans or do they deserve to alive in a costless country if they take not fought themselves every bit war is fundamentally immoral. Most would contend this carries more weight than a question of morals regarding animals.

In either instance, power does not correlate to morality so tying one to the other is a personal pick. Something can exist considered to be a necessary evil.
You're too maxim that the ability to reflect is a token of intelligence. If animals are junior to humans in both aspects so is it notwithstanding immoral? In my opinion, if the agreement of a situation is so skewed, the same morals practice not apply.
And your signal of imagining a living, breathing animal pulsating and writhing in your grasp acts as an appeal to emotion which is a logical fallacy.
Exposure to emotive and persuasive language volition only convince those who are ignorant of the process. Most likely, this is a minority.

If y'all dont take child labour and would non be willing yourself to have a mill with children beingness employed should you so apply any device that uses parts fabricated by child labour?

Wtf does this take to do with relationships?

Morals are completely subjective so this is a flawed argument which really holds no betoken.
You can say it's morally incorrect and I can disagree which would me to continue eating meat.

Yous don't think about that when your at KFC

(Original post by Lapis.Lazuli)
Since you want to focus on morality, a better question would exist:
Should people praise war veterans or practise they deserve to live in a free country if they have not fought themselves as war is fundamentally immoral. Most would argue this carries more weight than a question of morals regarding animals.

In either case, ability does not correlate to morality so tying one to the other is a personal choice. Something tin exist considered to be a necessary evil.
Yous're also saying that the ability to reverberate is a token of intelligence. If animals are inferior to humans in both aspects then is it however immoral? In my opinion, if the understanding of a situation is so skewed, the same morals do not apply.
And your point of imagining a living, breathing fauna pulsating and writhing in your grasp acts every bit an appeal to emotion which is a logical fallacy.
Exposure to emotive and persuasive linguistic communication will only convince those who are ignorant of the process. Most likely, this is a minority.

I want to focus on the morality of eating meat, and so information technology does non make information technology a better question to bring another subject into that...war or otherwise. I am not writing an essay, or epq or something, I am but wondering about this specific subject.

You lot say something about animals being junior to us, so is it immoral... Well that depends on how you are measuring inferiority and superiority, and if y'all really remember it is possible to measure out that, and if that's actually a factor over whether we tin can kill something (some may say our superiority is why we should care for animals, others may say we aren't superior as we do things similar murder, rape etc. and animals don't). Only fifty-fifty if I rationally believed a sheep to be junior to me it still doesn't mean I tin can make my conscience non care about killing it. Rationality doesn't govern everything for a person whether he/she likes it or not.

My description near a living breathing brute pulsating etc. was non to cast a moral judgement on the poster, but to make a vivid description to aid him empathize a scrap more what it would really feel like. And if you lot read farther, you would see I said, "if it'due south nonetheless yes subsequently really thinking about how information technology would feel, then ok then," as I was only inquiring as to whether he really meant it, and not trying to pass judgement or entreatment to emotions. Why should I anyway? I am not a vegetarian and so I take been accepting the slaughtering of animals all my life.

I concur that living in a country that is dedicated past the military - an authorization many people have a lot of moral conflicts with, is another of import moral question. And that brings up the question of the social utlity of the psychopath - nosotros ourselves couldn't morally carry out the killing of some other person, driblet bombs etc., but nosotros are benefitting from people who can.

Most people wouldn't kill an brute... unless they were forced to go on a no meat diet for awhile,then mofos will be eating from alive pigs/cows before they've fifty-fifty bled out.

So since you are against killing animals for meat does that hateful you don't wear any leather products as those animals have been killed for clothing not meat?

(Original postal service by jackbus)
And then since y'all are against killing animals for meat does that mean you don't wear whatever leather products equally those animals have been killed for clothing not meat?

I am non a vegetarian and am not *against* the killing of animals for meat, I unsure about it and would like a better perspective on how I call up nearly it.

I thought leather came from the skin of animals that have been killed for their meat, so it is like a by-production, only maybe that's not the case? I'thousand certain all these industries have nasty secrets. I am told leather is good for shoes as information technology is natural and your skin can breathe ameliorate, but perchance that is simply mum talk and in that location are better materials at present. Only fur is another matter as they are killed for that and information technology's a *luxury* and then to speak - it'southward not a healthier fabric to be on your pare, it's but about flaunting wealth and a corrupt sense of taste. In siberia for case though, information technology may exist necessary to article of clothing animal fur as the weather is so cold would be putting yourself at gamble if you didn't vesture information technology -and so it's got a meaningful use.

I don't tend to wear leather myself as I find information technology off-putting but am not against information technology, in actual fact if you are gonig to kill the animate being for meat then I recollect information technology's making adept use of the rest of the animal to use their skin as leather and so as not to waste information technology.

Source: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4897066

Posted by: johnsonhatome.blogspot.com

Share this post