The science is trying hardly to find out the reason for human existence. The only thing humans know is that they are selected by a Supreme Power due to unknown reasons.That is the reason for the extreme difference of homo sapiens from others.Everything is created for us.We are given the right to rule all other creatures of earth.For any Good intention Therefore I don't Think it is a fault to consume meat . But 'Out Of Control' Is still a problem
I see no reason eating meat is morally wrong. If we were to harvest the meat of animals who died of natural causes (according to your reasoning) there should be no moral objection to this. Of course, I would prefer to have meat at it's prime and not wait for an animal to keel over of old age! Not to mention, there are a ton of uses for leather. So perhaps these animals were euthanized for leather purposes. We are morally obligated to utilize the meat. I am assuming you have something made of leather in your home or car. Leather products can include belts, wallets, foot wear, baseball gloves, handbags, furniture, car seats, jackets, or maybe even some assless chaps or a whip! Seriously, though, a moral issue could be made for killing animals for their meat, but I believe until we come up with an inexpensive substitute with the same high protein, nutrients, and vitamins all in one source it is not a reasonable expectation.
I've got a few reasons for saying yes. Firstly, I love meat. I won't argue that the main reason I eat it isn't because of how inclined I am to favor the taste of a steak over some cauliflower. Secondly, I we are biologically programmed to do so- millions of years of hunting other animals has ingrained the taste we have for meat into our genetic makeup. However, this reason alone is invalidated by the fact that there are alternatives to meat readily available to me, so that brings me to my third reason- eating meat is morally right because when the vast majority of humans do it, we feel no regret. Does this mean in the future history won't look back and call us barbaric? No, they probably will. But as for right now, we as a culture seem to be pretty okay with it. So yeah.
Morality is being discussed and argued by people. It can first be argued that our moral views/beliefs come from our environment, which are people and experiences. As a culture we generally believe it is alright to eat and kill animals for meat, in fact it's a main discussion point of morality.
Yes, consuming meat is okay. I have been a meat eater for my entire life. Based on my religion, I believe eating meat, of some kinds is perfectly okay. Our body needs proteins and other nutrients provided by meat. Those who don't partake have to work harder to supplement those nutrients. As long as there is no animal cruelty involved, it is moral.
Moral, itself, is the beliefs that change person to person. I can find something morally wrong another culture will not. I do believe it is moral because it is a natural behavior of other animals and even humans. The problem with meat is that most lives in caged environments and are mistreated. I find that immoral. If animals live a good life before they die, I believe it is moral. Veal, or caged animals are things I find immoral, because that is no way to live.
However, morality changes with customs and cultures. It is important to keep that in mind.
How can we consider it moral to slaughter millions upon millions of animals horrifically over such petty reasons like how they taste? Take a good look at dog fighting. Is it moral? No. Does it have a reason to exist? No. Does eating meat? No, and they both accomplish nothing more than entertainment. Really, It's one thing to murder 56 billion animals a year, but I think it's another thing entirely to try and defend it as being moral. If you're going to be a part of something terrible, the very least you could do is admit that it's not moral. I shop at Walmart, is that moral just because most people engage in it? No, it's not. Because children are being exploited and paid nothing for it. Funny thing is, I don't even like cows. I don't like farm animals in general. But really, people have to be some kind of delusional or desensitized to have the nerve to pretend that this is somehow moral. 56 billion, that's completely insane. More animals suffer horrific deaths than there are people walking this earth.
And to think, some self-righteous people have the nerveto try and downplay the suffering by saying 'we've got our problems to. Why worry about animals when there are humans suffering.'
It doesn't matter what subjective notions you have of a creatures worth such as humanity being supposedly worth more than animals. 56 billion > 7 billion. This is simple mathematics. And ultimately, most of these animals will not die for anything noble like feeding orphans or poor people with nothing. It'll go to selfish people like you and me who easily have alternatives available.
But honestly, what do I expect from the same species that would sooner go on worrying about how two men engage in a relationship. By this point even without this slaughter killing 56 billion, the cows and chickens have already shown them selves to be far more noble.
It is immoral to eat meat, end of discussion.
The suffering and/or imposition that comes from harvesting sentient, feeling creatures (dogs, cats, cows etc.) is immoral. There is no doubt that suffering is bad (at least in the inter-subjective sense), therefore it should be avoided wherever possible. As for killing animals that have been put to sleep, it is considered immoral to kill a sleeping person because of the imposition on life, therefore it the same should follow for other sentient, feeling creatures.