/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>14632701
Animals are inherently evil. They kill other animals and deserve the death penalty.

>>14632701
Christians say shit like thats what they exist for lol

>>14632714
What about rabbits?

There aren't for any - isms. It's all arbitrary, veganism just as much as eating meat. The invisible line that humans chose to separate living beings into edible or not has only abstract bearing

>>14632701
Morality is just a point of view.
If it is good for me, it is moral, if it isn't, it's amoral
There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it

>>14632701
The same reason eating non meat is moral. Quit being retarded.

>>14632724

mostly just for pigs
pigs are assholes who'd eat you given the chance, or even just a chunk of you
maybe a few types of birds that are essentially too stupid to live like turkeys
and of course overpopulation of wild game like deer, kangaroos, or even fish, death of some is preferable to starvation of many.

the main reason we raised animals was to convert things useless to us like grass and straw into things we can eat
male calfs, old chickens that don't give eggs anymore and dry cows were the main sources of meat that wasn't pork for a very long time.
Honestly I'm not too sure I can defend eating mutton or lamb though, but their supple leather was a desired material as much as the wool was, so it only makes sense to eat the meat as well.

>>14632724
did you never see watership down as a kid? rabbits fight to the death, they just aren't very good at murdering things that aren't other rabbits

Okay here's one pulled out of my ass. Energy can't be destroyed, only converted. The cow represents a massive amount of energy. It's selfish for the cow to keep all that energy to itself and it's ethical to redistribute that energy so that it can be shared with the many. Therefore killing the cow is moral.

>>14632701
causing suffering isn't immoral so eating meat is okay.
plus managing populations is often good for them, helps prevent disease and stuff.

>>14632701
why not ask what makes it immoral instead? animals eat each other, why cant we?
>animals are animals, we have different moral standard
either you have one standard for everyone - then everyone can eat meat; or you agree that animals are not humans, and they are morally inferior to us.
>but it's harming a living being! you need to have empathy!
see above. if you agree animals are inferior and different from humans, you cant apply same moral laws and standard to them as you would to humans. if you think they're "just like us", read more. you'll realize animals arent angels, they would be considered extremely violent individuals without morality and reason by human standards
>but it is pointless slaughter!
exactly the opposite - it's done for a point. the point is meat and feeding people. this is different from torturing animals for cruel pleasure which is a sign of psychopathy. killing animals for meat is normal activity.

>>14632724
Islam is right about women.

There's probably a million different philosophical arguments to be made as to why humans eating meat is good. Whether or not you consider any of them "good philosophical arguments" is probably going to depend on your existing philosophical beliefs. You could go with simple utilitarianism and say that you believe the moral sum of the animal's suffering and your benefit from its flesh is a net good, due to humans having higher intelligence than animals or due to personally valuing human happiness over animal happiness, and that therefore it is a moral obligation for humans to eat meat. I'm an absurdist, so I think the morality of an action is transient, only existing for as long as some sentient organism gives it value. Therefore, whether eating meat is "moral" or not doesn't really matter, at least beyond what I or someone capable of exercising power over me believes.

>>14632701
>philosophy
a made up 'science' for autistic dolichocephalic rat-jawed europoids
needing an argument for something means you're a failed human

>>14632701
Here’s my philosophical argument:
I can do whatever the fuck I want and nobody should be allowed to stop me, and if they try, I should be able to respond with equal or greater force to stop them in return. Restricting freedom based on morals is as inherently evil as restricting freedom based on self-interest.

>>14632701
Cows in their lifespan live easy lifes free from the fear of the wolf or the mighty bear, until they get out of this Valley of Sorrows whithout realizing it

>>14632701
Meat is nutrient and energy-dense and if you include things like offal, you're getting a pretty wide range of nutrients. In addition, the secondary products that an animal carcass can provide make life remarkably better for humans. As a human, my foremost responsibility is to maintain my own health and benefit, before looking to help others. Not because I have to, but because it is a) necessary for being able to help sustainably and b) helping others makes sense when there's mutual benefit. These animals want to continue their progeny and they can't do it without us.

... as in, eating meat must continue, unless you want to cull an unbelievable amount of animal life in one go.

>>14632701
why does morality have to play into it? why philosophy? why does higher intelligence mean you have to consider the life of something you're eating?

>>14633474

>>14632701
>carnivorism
You mean eating nothing but meat? No. That's fucking retarded, and that's just from a nutritional standpoint.

>>14632701
What makes living moral? The moral thing to do would be to kill yourself OP.

Guy went from vegan to hunter.
I think he had a slew of reasons, including trucking soybeans across the country to the soymilk factory and then to the store created more carbon emissions than him just going out and harvesting an organic free range deer.
He was probably ready to try eating bullets, decided to feed one to a deer and then eat it because he chickened.

>>14633789
You've never heard of Libertarians?

The only thing that should matter to someone is their own happiness. If consuming the flesh of animals gives them pleasure, they should do so.
>So if it makes someone happy to [insert utterly heinous and immoral act here], they should do it?
Yes. However if by doing so you impede on others happiness, then they would have cause to stop you. So while you may do as you like, be wary that if it gets in the way of others happiness then you will be confronted and stopped by them.

>>14633930
Inherently flawed philosophy that always leads to a small group who has more rights than others. Always turns out many individuals have no rights or freedoms. Totalitarianism ensues. Needs checks and balances. It's retarded.