Plutarch on animal ethics

[doc_loliday]

I'm just surprised that in all of your conversations, with innumerable people, you've never considered demonstrating why it is wrong.

[StCapps]

Eating meat is not inherently wrong. Killing sentient beings for pleasure, whether for sport or for food, when the body lives well on plants alone, is unethical

The environmental problems, (which are massive) caused by animal agriculture are unethical for every sentient creature that exists, including humans.

Just think of the amazon rainforest, the most biologically diverse place on earth, and so in the observable universe, and humans are destroying it for a demand of steak and burgers.

Some animals need to be killed, for the good of environment, and other animals. Saying that killing animals is inherently wrong, shows how ignorant you actually are.

This is what I wrote dude, you don't need to put words in my mouth.

Eating meat is not inherently wrong. Killing sentient beings for pleasure, whether for sport or for food, when the body lives well on plants alone, is unethical

Letting meat go to waste, when it can be used to feed people, and the animals need killing anyway, is morally wrong. Seems like you would rather people starve than eat meat, because they can just eat plants instead, even though that isn't actually the case. Some parts of the world don't have enough edible plants nearby to survive on, and lack the infrastructure or economic resources to get enough plants for people to eat, and even if they didn't, letting meat go to waste just because there are plants to eat is a waste of valuable resources that people need to survive and/or thrive.

[doc_loliday]

So, eating meat is not inherently wrong, it's just a matter of how much land degradation is acceptable? By what measure and according to whom? Sounds like you're coming around.

[JohnDonne]

Why the barrage of straw men?

[doc_loliday]

Your beef isn't environmental devastation?

[StCapps]

Why the barrage of straw men?

Perhaps because you are afraid to clarify your position properly, because that would expose you to counter-arguments you don't want to hear. People are just trying to fill in the blanks, since you won't do it for us.

When is it moral to kill animals? If the answer is never, under any circumstances, then I haven't strawmanned your position, I simply anticipated it.

[JohnDonne]

There's multiple problems with animal agriculture, we can talk about them, without a barrage of straw-men.

Like right there, I never said it is never moral to kill animals, lol.

[StCapps]

There's multiple problems with animal agriculture, we can talk about them, without a barrage of straw-men.

Agreed, lots of problems with animal agriculture, that doesn't mean the solution is veganism. It just means work on the problems with animal agriculture and don't throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. If you want to be a vegan, or pitch people on the virtues of veganism, knock yourself out, everyone in the world going vegan, is not going to be good for the environment, just like if everyone went on the carnivore diet, it wouldn't be good for the environment.

[doc_loliday]

It would help if you just stated one argument at time, rather than a string of them that circularly depend on the others.

[StCapps]

It would help if you just stated one argument at time, rather than a string of them that circularly depend on the others.

I ain't in the business of helping you make your case for you, that's on you.

Some people are healthier with a vegan diet, other people are healthier with a carnivore diet, some people are healthier with a more balanced diet, one size, does not fit all. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?