Amazon.com Widgets
  • You are killing animals for a taste preference

    It has been established, and re-established, many times by the masses of healthy, thriving and active vegans in the world that meat is not necessary for survival. It has also been proven, repeatedly, that the consumption of animal products (including eggs and dairy) are actually destructive to health. What this means that you are unnecessarily causing the suffering and death of an innocent and intelligent individual. Furthermore, the consumption of animal products contributes to a plethora of other issues such as environmental degradation, starvation in developing and semi-developed countries, and puts a huge strain on social services as a result of the diet-based conditions of obesity, cancer and heart disease.

  • I have never heard a statement that justify eating meat

    Animal rights actives have given many arguments that destroy eating sentient animals as a moral behavior. A meat eater cant even provide good evidence to conclude that humans are omnivores (judging by our biology). If you can prove a behavior immoral but cannot provide any evidence for the other side than you are left to conclude that it is immoral.

  • Meat Production contains immoral practices.

    While the "eating of meat" may not be "immoral" by default (there are circumstances where it could be morally acceptable or preferable); the production of that meat as a food source contains many moral variables that need to be considered.

    In most/all moral frameworks from Deontology to Consequentialism to Kantian absolutism, *needless* animal cruelty is an immoral status.

    To put it in perspective, if you have two choices of equal price and taste steaks:

    One from a local healthy farm with pampered cows and humane slaughtering practices near the end of their life-cycle;

    The other from a dirty farm where the cows are beaten mercilessly and locked in small cages and cattle-prodded to slaughter where they're suspended from broken legs and incompetently stabbed multiple times to get their blood drained while they writhe in pain until they bleed out.

    Almost universally, the morally preferable option is the first steak.

    By extension, the morally preferable option is often "no steak", because you can't always know where your food comes from and how it was treated.

    Meat production needs to be improved until the immorality of the practice is reduced to a level that matches the benefits to humans; until then reduction in demand through relatively stringent vegetarianism or extreme cut-backs in meat consumption are the morally superior path. Morally equivalent to this would be engineering non-suffering meat sources.

  • Animals suffer unimaginable misery for meat

    We have no right to lock tens of thousands of animals away in windowless sheds and filthy, crowded factory farms, pump them full of hormones and drugs and then slaughter them whenever it takes our fancy. It is a lifetime of misery all for a fleeting moment of taste. The only way to stop this cycle of cruelty is to go vegan.

  • Yes. Is it anything that every creature edible doesn't deserve any sympathy?

    If your pet dog dies, you shed tears for it. If a bird lost a wing and is suffering in pain, you feel awful. But why not show such sympathy towards living things that are eligible meat material? Is it anything that since they can be eaten they don't deserve to live their life? Can't we live without eating meat? Yes we certainly can. So it means, we do all the harm just for the sake of appetite. Doesn't it sound immoral?

  • Yes. It contributes to unnecessary suffering and it is environmentally unsustainable.

    In his article "The Immorality of Eating Meat" [available here: http://www.Uta.Edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Engel,%20The%20Immorality%20of%20Eating%20Meat%20(2000).Pdf ], Mylan Engel starts by identifying a number of common sense moral principles, which you no doubt accept; principles like: "It is wrong to cause an animal to suffer for no good reason." He then uses these principles to argue that your own beliefs and values commit you to the immorality of eating meat. If you reject Engel's conclusion, please identify which of his commonsense moral principles you reject.

  • Yes - minimize harm to people

    Meat is more difficult and intensive to produce than other foods. Producing meat requires more energy and resources, leading to faster degradation of land and natural resources. Eating a meat-intensive diet thus leaves others off worse-off in the long run, both because meat production is less sustainable and because of the significant associated pollution. We should operate from the principle of minimizing harm, and eating less meat or cutting it out entirely is an easy step to ensuring the well-being of other people.

  • Don't eat anything with a face.

    Eating meat is immoral because it disrespects life. Why eating cow, pig or chicken is okay but not human, dog or any other meat. This is a hypocrisy as some people's sensitivity is so misplaced. They will be crying to see a dog saved but will not think twice eating a cow. Cow or pig are as an intelligent animal as dog and also have emotions. Stop eating anything with a face.

  • Because of empathy for animals

    I'm sure you would not want to be in a slaughterhouse in you were a animal yourself, therefore, eating meat is definitely immoral. And not only that, it also requires more space to herd animals, than to farm plants, so we could have more food if we ditch the meat, and stick to plants.

  • It is immoral to eat meat because it is bad for the environment.

    Eating meat causes great harm to the environment, it causes water pollution, and air pollution. According to the EPA, Raising animals for slaughter is the number one source of air pollution. Also, Hog, chicken and cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states, and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. These statistics are a few examples of many of how eating meant is directly affecting the environment. So, you can continue to think that eating meat isn't harming anything or anyone, when it actually is, thats on you. Because of this reason it is crucial to the environment that we must stop eating meat.

  • Nothing wrong with eating meat

    Humans are by their very nature omnivores. A healthy diet should include some meat, as it is the most effective way to obtain many necessary nutrients. Animals can certainly be killed in a humane nature for human consumption. Any objection to the idea of eating meat is simply a personal choice, and it is false moralism to apply it to every one. Eating meat is natural. It's that simple.

  • No

    It is not immoral to eat meat. It is part of the life cycle. If it were immoral to eat meat that all the carnivores of this world are immoral and the people that have lived generations before us were immoral. Any one who know anything about farming knows how well most of this animals are treated.

  • No

    I do not believe eating meat is immoral. There are animals that are bred for food. While sometimes feeding the animals that are bred for food is a drain on natural resources, it makes money and a lot of people have been brought up this way. This goes back to our early ancestors living off of what animals were there.

  • No, it is not immoral to eat meat

    For many, our faith even includes many examples of eating meat as a way of sustanance. There is nothing immoral about it, any more that eating fish or vegetables. Each has its place in our diet and provided each is consumed in moderation, will not be harmful to ourselves or our environment.

  • No, but.

    It is not immoral to eat meat. It is part of the cycle of life. I myself am a vegetarian, and find the eating of meat to be repulsive and disgusting. I cannot bring myself to eat what I know was once an innocent cow or pig. Like I said, the act itself is not immoral since it is necessary.

  • Meat is a moral, tasty choice.

    I can find nothing at all that is immoral to eat meat. Given enough time, I could probably even find a Biblical verse or two defending the practice, if that's where you want to go. I can understand that some people may have concerns about sustainability practices, but that's an ecological, not moral, argument.

  • Morality is not the problem with eating meet. The ecological and environmental problems are the real case.

    Moral is subjective and its usually built out of 2 parts : some kind of a moral code that you can share with people who have the same values as you and your own subjective opinion and your own world view. Thats why I feel like this topic is not debatable.

    As a none vegan and sceptic person I looked at this topic without any ideology because ideology can make look at specific things as important to the debate but those things can be absolutely unnecessary. After I reviewed the problems with meet production I understood the ecological and environmental problems are a complete disaster.

    I recently stopped eating meet for the joy in it and started consume meet only for the health benefits and now im eating almost 3 times less meet then usually.

  • Morality is not the problem with eating meet. The ecological and environmental problems are the real case.

    Moral is subjective and its usually built out of 2 parts : some kind of a moral code that you can share with people who have the same values as you and your own subjective opinion and your own world view. Thats why I feel like this topic is not debatable.

    As a none vegan and sceptic person I looked at this topic without any ideology because ideology can make look at specific things as important to the debate but those things can be absolutely unnecessary. After I reviewed the problems with meet production I understood the ecological and environmental problems are a complete disaster.

    I recently stopped eating meet for the joy in it and started consume meet only for the health benefits and now im eating almost 3 times less meet then usually.

  • If eating meat is immoral doesn't that make other things immoral too?

    If eating meat is immoral, then doesn't that make eating eggs immoral? What about our clothing? Is wearing certain clothes immoral too? If we stop eating meat because it's immoral, then we would have to change our entire lifestyle because it would be considered immoral. Also, if eating meat is immoral because we are killing animals, then wouldn't that make eating plants immoral because we are killing plants?

  • No its not...

    If it is wrong to eat an animal then it should be wrong to eat plants both alive and both feel pain. It's fine to eat eat plants even though their alive. Then it should be fine to animals, bc the they have the common structure. If we were to only eat plants it we would quickly run out of plants and it is not aways affordable to large families. It would be quite difficult to find the right protein for their children


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-06-01T07:13:56.480
Eating meat is not nessasary and a waste of resources.

A healthy vegetarian gets enough protein from nuts, seeds, legumes, rice, milk, beans, rice, fruit, ect.
It is optional to eat meat but doing so has a price.