I think your comments are earnest and I wonder if in person I’d be able to maybe change your mind.
My argument would be that we shouldn’t determine mercy based on what something else would do to us, but on what we can do in pursuit of a worthy goal. Basically what the “right” thing is independent of how we’d be treated in a similar circumstance.
In this case the goal would be reducing suffering of other living things.
If we had to eat meat to live then I’d understand the tradeoff, but we don’t so it seems wrong.
> “ And I, in turn, have seen no justification for not eating meat better than "you shouldn't eat meat".”
The justification I’m trying to make is that reducing suffering of living things is a worthwhile goal and something we can do by not eating meat.
> “ it is to point out that there is no reason not to eat other animals and there are very good reasons to eat them”
Thanks, but I don't think you'd change my mind in person, sorry :)
I think I understand your point and I wouldn't eat meat if I thought it's immoral, or wrong in any way. But I'm not convinced it is.
Reducing suffering is of course a worthy goal, but like I say in other comments there must be a balance. Some suffering is, for me, justified, if the purpose is to kill an animal to eat it, because that is necessary.
You say we don't need to eat meat. I'm not sure what you mean. We certainly need nutrients that are found only in animal products and animal meat is a rich source of nutrients anyway. Personally, I don't think I would be able to live a healthy life without eating meat and animal products. For the record, I eat meat maybe a couple of times a week and I don't think that I need to eat a big juicy steak to feel I've had a proper meal. I'm Greek so I was brought up in a culture where most staple dishes are naturally vegetarian or vegan ("naturally" as in we just call them "food"), though supplemented with ample dairy products and lots and lots of fish. I do think that many people in the developed world eat way too much meat and I definitely think this is causing all sorts of problems, including no end to the unnecessary suffering of animals, because of course animal wellfare is much harder to ensure in industrialised farming, than in smaller scale farming.
I'm 100% with you in reducing suffering. I just don't agree that this means eating no meat at all, ever. I think it means reducing the amount of meat some people eat, abolishing industrial farming and educating people better about animal wellfare also. But I think, to cease eating meat at all is taking things way too far.
My argument would be that we shouldn’t determine mercy based on what something else would do to us, but on what we can do in pursuit of a worthy goal. Basically what the “right” thing is independent of how we’d be treated in a similar circumstance.
In this case the goal would be reducing suffering of other living things.
If we had to eat meat to live then I’d understand the tradeoff, but we don’t so it seems wrong.
> “ And I, in turn, have seen no justification for not eating meat better than "you shouldn't eat meat".”
The justification I’m trying to make is that reducing suffering of living things is a worthwhile goal and something we can do by not eating meat.
> “ it is to point out that there is no reason not to eat other animals and there are very good reasons to eat them”
I’d argue this isn’t true for the reasons above.