Essay:Why I eat meat

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by Tolerance.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

I have been inspired to write this article by the recent debate. Debate:Eating meat is wrong

Somewhat unusually I find that I am in agreement with many of the points made by many editors here. However, knowing that my opinions are often not welcome, and not wishing to attract templates distancing my opinions from the site, I would ask all potential readers to note that these opinions are mine alone and do not represent the views of Rationalwiki or its contributors.

Moral issues[edit]

Much has been made over the question of whether eating meat is moral. The question generated so much debate because so many of the participants in the debate were atheists without any clear moral code. Lacking this, the only moral compass they possess is that of the society they are born in or that of their upbringing. In such a case the question of whether or not we are justified in inflicting pain on animals for our benefit comes down to nothing more than personal opinion and people will often defend irrational personal opinions vigorously.

If we contrast this with the unchanging truth of The Bible then our problems are resolved. Nowhere in the Bible is eating meat condemned. Furthermore the Old Testament tells us which animals we can eat. The New Testament expanded the potential smorgasbord. Given that the bible (and therefore God) has no objection to our eating meat there is obviously no moral objection on principal.

I see that the issue of "whence morality" was raised in the debate, but that nobody wanted to talk about it.

What about animal suffering?[edit]

The Old Testament specifies that animals be bled to death. Although authorities differ on the issue, it seems likely to me that the experience is unpleasant for the animal. Consequently there is no obvious reason for us to care about animal suffering.

"Scientific" objections[edit]

A number of so called “scientific” objections were raised by some people during the debate. Before I address them specifically I would like to make a general comment. Science has no real conception of “truth” and certainly no conception of “right or wrong” and so using science in such a debate may well be contrary to NOMA.

Secondly, for every scientific “theory” there is a counter-theory. Consider Dawkins and Behe. Both are scientists but they have radically different ideas. Consequently we may confidently assume that for every Scientific Study saying one thing there will be another saying something else.

Meat eating and so called “Global Warming”[edit]

Here we have a myth piled on a misunderstanding. Perhaps the word “mythunderstanding” would be appropriate.

Many scientists claim Global Warming is happening, but many do not. Consider the Oregon Petition which has thousands of PHDS saying that Global warming is a myth.

Piled on this hoax is the idea that animals can contribute to this mythical “Global Warming”. No doubt there are “Scientific reports” saying this is happening, and I am sure there are others saying the opposite.

Animals have lived on this planet for at least six thousand years and they have yet to cause it to boil.

Eating meat is bad for you[edit]

Another "scientific myth". I am not sure how much I should say about this, as the suggested “scientific studies” studies claiming to show this are so obviously wrong that there is little point in talking about them. People eat meat all their lives and they are not poisoned by it. During the whole of human history people have eaten meat and it has not killed them, in fact it has been vital to their survival. "Scientists" who suggest otherwise simply have their own agendas. For instance Dr Rajendra Pachaur, so called "chairman" of the IPCC is almost certainly a Hindu, and his suggestions that we eat less meat are probably based on his religious views and not "science".

One could argue subjectively that God would not have made animals so tasty if it were not his intention that they be eaten. Indeed an argument of this type seems to have been made by many contributors to the debate who stated that animals' tastiness was a moral justification. I am not sure how far I would want to persue this line of argument as it is the weakest of all (and I mention it only because a version of this argument was made by many members of this site on the debate page) but it is generally supportive of my case.

In conclusion[edit]

  • There is no moral/biblical case against eating meat.
  • Animal suffering does not count where human satisfaction is concerned
  • Global Warming is not happening so keeping animals cannot contribute to it.
  • Eating meat is good for you, and probably eating more is better then eating less.
  • Many people on this site have suggested that as animal flesh is tasty then eating it is morally acceptable.