Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point is that nature is full of examples of behaviors that would be immoral for humans to do. Animals are not capable of moral reasoning, thus they should not be expected to behave morally. Humans are capable of such reasoning, and that ability places a special burden on us to consider the consequences of suffering and pleasure that come from our actions.
True, but there is no such thing as a uniform morality among humans. Many humans feel eating meat is acceptable with their chosen morality.
To point out the obvious: If eating dogs and cats is something "civilized" people don't do, then it is certainly true that civilized people don't eat cows, pigs, chickens, fish, etc. as there is no important moral distinction between those animals and dogs and cats.
A moral distinction is in the eye of the beholder.
To some, there is a great deal of moral distinction. To some, there is not.
For instance, humans are animals. To some there is a moral distinction between humans and other animals. To some there is not.
Fish are not "animals," scientifically speaking. They also don't have a nervous system. So fish really are different from cows, pigs, etc. Scientifically speaking.
And rabbits. Up until rather recently (I consider the mid-20th century "rather recent" history), rabbits were more commonly eaten than chicken, being cheaper on the economic meat chain than chicken. When most of the population was still rural (all the way up to the mid-20th century), rabbits were also available free of charge and without the cost of raising them yourself.
When Herbert Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot," the then-understood message was "you will have enough money to skip eating rabbit."
Rabbits are delicious! There is a restaurant I visit occasionally that has hasenpfeffer on the menu.
Now that we have people thinking the plant plant mesquite is a great BBQ wood, I suggest we now recommend coyote meat as a delicacy to be cooked on it?
BTW bpollen, fish are indeed animals or at least they were when I was in school during the Triassic. Possibly you meant fish are not mammals which are the animals people normally feel a greater sense of objection to eating?
Just think about it..... Farmlamd is disappearing at an alarming rate every year. Since it's much more profitable to sell the farm to build houses and businesses. Land is expensive to purchase. Even hunters are having a heck of a time to find private land these days to hunt deer to feed themselves and their family.
With the ever increasing population in the U.S., and rapid decrease of family farms, people need to eat for survival. In 50-100yrs. from now, can you see this happening in the U.S. similar to other countries around the world?
I can't believe you come up with this idea.
Check the people who live in the Chinatown. They forget the veggies on the grounds that are not running around.
Fish are not "animals," scientifically speaking. They also don't have a nervous system. So fish really are different from cows, pigs, etc. Scientifically speaking.
WHAT????? Fish certainly belong to the animal kingdom, scientifically fish are animals. Fish most certainly have nervous systems as well.
I should hope it does. Eating a cat or dog is no morally different than eating a cow or chicken. Plus, it would send the dog and cat fanatics around the bend, so I would get enjoyment from watching the freakout even if I couldn't actually try the new meats (wife would divorce me).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.