Quote:
Originally Posted by Sowa
I don't see where I shift the scope. I don't argue that humans are biologically supposed to refrain from meat. I argue that not eating meat is the morally correct path. There's nothing you can say that will change my mind.
|
It does call your morals into question, though.
You claim that not eating meat is the moral choice, which leads me to assume that you'd like to see a significant decrease, if not a complete elimination, of domesticated animals. At the very least, I'm sure you'd like to see the end of animals being raised as food. Am I wrong?
So here, your moral stance is that the domestication of animals for food purposes is wrong, and that it would be more ethical to allow all animals to live 'in a state of nature'. Again, if I'm wrong, let me know.
However, domesticated animals, by any measure, live a much safer, healthier, and softer existence than wild animals - who are subject to predation, disease, starvation, habitat disruption, etc. etc. So, your morals on this count anyway are pretty
laissez faire and relative, as I'm sure you object to people being subject to disease and starvation, and support efforts to reduce those two scourges.
Also, as has been pointed out, in a 'state of nature' humans eat other animals. Our ability to be generalists in our eating habits is one of the great secrets to our success as a species.
So essentially you're saying that a state of nature is what's good and correct for other creatures, but not for us. And you also feel that values which we can agree are desirable for humans (such as prevention of disease and starvation) are not desirable for animals.
Do you see the tenuousness of the argument from morality when it comes to vegan/vegetarianism? If you make the choice, make it for personal reasons, or dietary reasons, but don't pretend that it's the 'moral' choice, because that is utterly subjective.