You have had some sort of life-intervention from whence came a high respect for nature and the earth. Arguably, this is a funny turn in human social evolution as we know human nature encourages the opposite, to be aggressive and selfish. Either way, a chain of events led you to measure pro's against con's, either consciously or sub-consciously, and you made a decision that from that point on, you're gonna be more aware of animals. How they are treated, how they are mistreated, and furtherer, any other related moral question that might arise. Your respect for your surroundings is a result of your experiences with the respective surroundings.
Agreed, that's why I don't paint meat-eaters as selfish assholes. But it also has to do with my willingness to listen and compare the pros and cons. You're discussing it right now so what's stopping you from measuring the pros and cons? The information needed is right here. Like you said, you're choosing not to.
My experiences in life have also led me to hate human beings and I'd love to see us become extinct but that doesn't stop me treating people with respect (until they prove to be assholes and then I have no qualms with being an asshole back).
I actually don't think it's a funny turn at all. We're intelligent enough to think about our actions so it's to be expected that some people ignore their instincts because they have better judgement than that. I think it's a natural process for human beings, as
moral creatures, to stop eating meat. Although it more than likely won't happen because the general populace is more animal than human.
Preach said:
I'm just suggesting the notion that maybe there are things out there in the world that I am extra aware of, that you wouldn't even consider, like say release of CO2. Or use of electricity. Throwing trash or cigarette butts on the street. Something that I'm not even thinking about maybe.
Not being able to achieve perfection is not a reason for not trying to improve yourself.
But yes, I don't have a problem admitting that I don't have a problem with eating meat. I do not think my eating meat hurts the environment so much as certain other things. In the end, humans demand resources to live and we demand more of them than any other living being, so one way or the other the earth would ultimately decay without population control, and I'll worry about that before I worry about eating meat.
I understand but I simply don't agree with the notion of ignoring something important because someone else might be more important
in a case like this. Like the people that say "why should we care about animals when people are dying?". I might agree with them if they were actually out helping people but in most cases they're not. They're ignoring both.
Extreme example:
Someone snaps and decide they're gonna kill another specific person. They feel that it is morally justifiable, but in reality, "they" is a raging madman. In their own mind, their lunacy might seem like the only logical solution to a fictional problem, but to everyone else, the person is considered amoral and sociopathic. A "normal" person's lack of understanding for a madman's arguments is comparable to a meat-eaters lack of understanding for a vegetarian's arguments.
I know you said it's an extreme example but even then it's an incredibly faulty analogy. A madman's actions are by very definition inspired by madness, not rational. They may
feel it's morally justifiable but they don't have the mental capacity to actually think it through. Their brains are hard-wired in a different way. You can't truly understand a madman until you become one and then you're a madman so you won't realize you're a madman
Most arguments that support vegetarianism are based on morals. How a person feels about certain things might differ but everyone is capable of understanding the arguments. It might be hard for someone who doesn't care about animals to understand someone who does but that's a different case. When it comes to emotions your madman analogy might work but not in respect to this topic.
but you know that humans have eaten meat for centuries, so if you are suggesting it's unnormal, you are wrong.
(Ignoring the fact that 'normal' is subjective) Just because people have been doing it for centuries doesn't make it normal.
Would you agree with this statement?
"men have been raping women for centuries, so if you are suggesting it's unnormal, you are wrong."
if you're a vegetarian because you think it's the "natural" thing to do for a human being, you are simply wrong. Humans are predators.
Absolutely not. It is natural for human beings to eat meat. But I've explained in detail in previous posts why saying something is "natural" is not an argument. We do plenty of unnatural things and we don't do plenty of natural things.
Also vegetables have nothing to do with being a vegetarian. Vegetarian = no meat. That's it. So if you became a vegetarian you could continue not eating vegetables (you don't right?). When I go to the kebab store I don't order a plate of vegetables, I order a pizza margharita.
