Philosophical study of life, death, and nature

Home > Other Pages > Discussions > This page

Discussion on the morality of eating meat and humans
Jul.6,2000 - Jul.21,2000 Edited by Masahiro Morioka (Profile)

  I am new here. Thought I'd see what you all think about this.

  I've been thinking about the morality of eating
  meat and have decided that the issue can be
  divided into 3 seperate moral categories.
 

  1) People eat meat simply because they need to
  in order to survive. Whether they enjoy it or not
  is not the issue, the fact is that they need
  the proteins and iron etc that can only come
  from meat.
 

  2) People can get their protein and
  biological requirements from vegetables and
  dietry suppliments. We have the technology to
  fulfill our needs without eating meat. But people
  eat meat because they enjoy it.
 

  3) Number 2 applies, but people also experiment
  with meat from many different species. They will
  eat meat that they may not enjoy, simply to
  make a social statement. Eating the flesh of rare
  animals costs alot and signifies ones social
  status.
 

  Which category do you fit into?

  Is it right that we kill and consume animals? If we
  can morally justify that action, can we justify
  experimentation on animals if it benefits the
  human species?
 

  Brent Silby 2000.

  >Brent Silby

  Hello. Welcome to our club.
  As for me, I do not eat "meat" because I do not think it delicious. I eat fish and vegitables. I presume many of
  those who eat meat think "meat" is delicious. This may be the reason they eat. Morality of eating is a very
  difficult issue.

  Brent, do you eat fish, and vegitables? And what do you think about the morality of eating fish and /or
  vegitables? If you think eating meat is wrong and eating fish and/or vegitables is not wrong, what is the reason
  for the distinction?

  Masahiro_Morioka,
  I eat fish and vegetables. I think there is no problem with eating vegetables, because they do not feel pain and
  are not conscious things -- as far as we know. Eating fish is more difficult to justify if one does not want to eat
  other meat for moral reasons. Fish are much simpler animals and perhaps do not suffer in the same way as
  other animals because they have such small brains. But, can we say they do not suffer at all? I am not sure. If
  we allow ourselves fish, then why not very small mammals. And if we can eat them, then how about larger
  mammals. This is a dangerous progression, and it is not very clear where it should stop. We surely do not want
  to eat *humans*. Where do we draw the line? Perhaps it is better to not eat any meat.

  Thankyou for responding to my post.

  Brent Silby.

  >Brent Silby

  Thanks for your reply. You said "there is no problem with eating vegetables, because they do not feel pain and
  are not conscious things", hence , logically you should also say "there is no problem with eating comatose
  human patients, because they do not feel pain and are not conscious things."

  If eating comatose humans is dangerous, there must be other reasons for not eating, besides "pain" and
  "consciouness."

  Hi Masahiro_Morioka

  Very good point. If it is alright to eat anything that does not suffer or feel pain, then it should be alright to eat a
  comatose patient. But we have to be certain that the unconscious patient does not feel pain -- who knows, the
  patient may feel pain but not be able to communicate it to us. Also, we have to be certain that the unconscious
  patient has no hope of recovering. Our theory should, thus, look like this: it is alright to eat anything that does
  not feel pain, and is not a conscious thinking thing, and has no chance whatsoever of becoming a conscious
  thinking thing.

  This may be better, but I suspect that people will still not accept that it is alright to eat an unconscious human.
  And yet they will eat other animals. Are people justified in placing a human life so far above other the lives of
  other animals?

  Brent Silby.

  >Brent Silby

  (1) OK, let us imagine a comatose patient, who were pronounced "brain dead", but the body is warm and fresh.
  This brain dead patient has no consciouness and never feel pain and has no chance of recovery (modern
  medicine says like this).

  So, your theory must be that it is not wrong to eat a brain dead comatose patient. Is this your theory?

  (2) Probably, many people who eat meat place the value of humans higher than those of animals. This is
  "speciesism", according to P.Singer and M.Tooley.

  Masahiro Morioka wrote:<"(1) OK, let us imagine a
  comatose patient, who were pronounced "brain dead", but
  the body is warm and fresh. This brain dead patient
  has no consciouness and never feel pain and has no
  chance of recovery (modern medicine says like
  this).

  So, your theory must be that it is not wrong to eat a
  brain dead comatose patient. Is this your
  theory?">

  In *theory* it is not wrong to eat the patient, because there is no
  suffering. If the patient has no hope of recovering and is not conscious
  and cannot feel pain, then the patient is no different to a lump of animal
  flesh.

  I have to admit that I would NOT eat the patient. For some reason I would
  feel uncomfortable about eating the patient, and I think most other people
  would also feel uncomfortable. But if people feel uncomfortable about
  eating the flesh of the human patient, why do they not feel uncomfortable
  about eating the flesh of any other animal?

  Brent Silby.

  >Brent Silby

  Well, you say that for some reasons you would feel uncomfortable about eating the patient, then, you should
  make clear the reasons why you feel that. I would like to know the additional *reasons*, because this is a very
  important point.

  ps. I will be out on a trip this week, my reply would be late, sorry.

  >Brent Silby

  Now I am back. I would like to know your ideas.

  My reasons for feeling strange about eating the comatosed human patient are irrational. They are the result of a
  lifetime of social programming, which cannot be easily overcome.

  Rationally there should be no difference between eating an unconscious, comatosed patient (so long as he/she
  was brain dead), and eating any other animal. Perhaps I should have the same problem with eating any life form.

  Brent Silby.

  >Brent Silby

  Do you think the irrational part of a human being should be overcome? or it be respected?

  perhaps we should clarify terms before answering masahiro morioka's question about rationality.

  by irrational, Brent, do you mean emotional, intuitive, both or perhaps something all together different?

Post a comment on this page / See what's already been said.