Killing dogs and animal ethics

I think no descriptive claim can be made about how killing an animal for meat is anything but killing an animal for the pleasure of the person having it killed. Because meat is by no means something humans need to survive killing an animal for it's meat holds the same moral value as just killing an animal because I want too.

My primary question is how this distinction is made. So far iiwars said it had to do with fat content but this is seemingly arbitrary (at least at this point in the discussion) and variable (farming institutions could easily start breeding dogs to be fatter). In my original statement there is the implied answer to this question of distinctions that no meaningful distinction can be made in the morality of killing a dog for my own pleasure or killing a cow for my own pleasure.

--- Double Post Merged, May 18, 2018, Original Post Date: May 18, 2018 ---

I agree that most people only eat meat for the taste and would extend that into saying most people eat meat for their own pleasure. There is literally no reason for the overwhelming majority of meat eaters to eat meat besides meat bringing them some amount of pleasure.

what is and isn't livestock is entirely socially constructed and meaningless in a moral discussion. Dogs could easily be livestock (they are in some places) and the moral truths that are asserted when you kill an animal to eat it's meat are the same as if I were to just shoot a stray dog. The moral proposition is that it is ok for me to kill an animal for my own pleasure.

--- Double Post Merged, May 18, 2018 ---

Again nature has no impact on morality. I'm loathe to be the guy who just links wikipedia pages about logical fallacies but you don't warrant any effort outside of copy-pasting a link.
Appeal to nature - Wikipedia

--- Double Post Merged, May 18, 2018 ---

Association fallacy - Wikipedia
Peta is not relevant to the ultimate morality of killing animals.

 

Nature does have an impact on our morality, a lot of people switch to vegetarian for the fact that meat grown farms are ruining the ozone. It's why some people ride a bike instead of driving a car. Yes, claiming that its nature as a vague statement is very bad for an argument, but I did give a reason to my claims. You always go back and forth about this being about morals, and it not being about morals. Pick a damn side.

But they are? As I have stated they teach/persuade people to not kill animals. This is how morals are made. If we were still cave men, we would lack trust, and would kill one another because we thought they were thinking the same exact thing. Morals are never going to be on the same page, since the winners have gotten to decide them. So claiming that they are not part of the whole picture, with their back and forth morality. It also proves that morality is very malleable and will never hold a steady ground.

 

There's no point in killing dogs. Who would eat dog meat?

 

There is no way to disprove this proposition without objective moral truths (which we don't have). The idea of necessity is completely irrelevant to this discussion because there is no evidence to support the fact that doing something out of necessity is morally "right" or "wrong".

I agree with OP.

According to who is something "ok" or "not ok"? You? God? This statement lacks evidence and is completely subjective. Spitting out moral dogmas does not prove those dogmas to be correct.

People do tho, sooo....

 

You cited the fact that there are carnivores in nature as justification for eating meat. What people have evolved to do naturally has nothing to do with what people should do morally.

 

So if you look at how morals are formed, it what we experience through out life. We been eating meat for longer than we can remember. It just keeps on going to the next generations, only in the past century or so we could have a stable source of food. Farmers would have to eat there cows, horses, chickens, ect. When they had a bad season of farming. Did you know it is easier to keep a live stock, than a plant, since they have seasons. So we are always going to be in the endless cycle till some higher force decides to force everyone hands. Like I've said, morals are built around teachings and laws.

So yes, nature had a big influence on all of our base morals. Humans still contain primitive instincts that will not go away for quite a while. So in the end, you do not understand the concept of morals. You act as if there is only one set. Morals are formed on infinite amount of options.

 

How an ethic is formed has nothing to do with the absolute truth value of that moral statement.

 

For the 112th time, but it is? It gets put into your head, changes how you think, since there are consequences for your actions.

--- Double Post Merged, May 18, 2018, Original Post Date: May 18, 2018 ---

Source - Moral Development - STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Wow, look at how ethics affect your morals. As shown it is a back and forth thing, constantly. It's why you have a subconscious.

 

You must literally be dense. The descriptive truth that people come to moral decisions based on x process has nothing to do with the normative truth of a moral statement. If you are ignorant of the basics of moral reasoning you should shy away from threads with "ethics" in the title.

 

You're the only one that has been ignorant of moral truth, since its about how the actual world is. Wow, lemme make up a bunch of crap to get this theoretical point off. You go back and forth on your whole argument, don't even add anything to your side of the argument beside saying it is irrelevant or off topic. I am done messing with this topic, since it still has gone no where.

 

You are categorically wrong when you say morality is about how the world “actually is”. This is extremely basic stuff regarding philosophy and argumentation, I suggest you learn the difference between a normative and descriptive claim.

 

adolf hitler ate meat

 

Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism - Wikipedia

 

i can’t tell if this is a veganism vs. nonveganism thread but I’ll just put this here

if you wanna take a religious view at this, the Bible states that animals are resources to us and deemed usable as needed. if we run out, we run out — it would be our own faults

if other animals are eating each other (predator -> prey, food chain), why can’t we?

vegans, convince me

 

Cannibalism is a crime against humanity

 

if u wanna be technical some societies do cannibalism and it’s accepted

and I don’t know if you were being serious but I was implying other animals like predator - prey, not in the same species

 

Not really a veganism vs nonveganism thread per se, I personally eat meat but I feel like 99% of meat eaters that pretend they care about animals if they see a story about an abused dog on facebook are massive hypocrites.

This argument doesn't follow from its premises. Other animals do things on the basis of evolutionary need as opposed to moral reasoning. Unless you adopt the framework that evolutionary reasons triumph moral ones what other life forms do is irrelevant.

 

Okay, lemme try to sum up these points in your argument.

- By "personal pleasure", you are talking about the consumer.

- If said customer is okay with the concept of slaughterhouses and those little drugs that make the animal bigger, than they must be okay with the same process to domestic pets.

- The consumer must be fine with the cruelty of these animals aswell.

- Cruelty-Free Farming (what the heck is that) does not exist.

Did I miss anything important?

 

No reason for eating meat exists other than pleasure. Because of this anyone who eats meat asserts that animals can be killed and made to suffer for the enjoyment and pleasure of humans. Most meat eaters don't hold this principal consistently because they will freakout if they see cruelty against dogs, cats, hamsters, or any other animal society decided had value.
I mentioned cruelty free farming to preemptively respond to a common ridiculous argument by meat eaters - that eating meat is ok so long as the animals do not suffer.

 

I don't know why you say that eating meat is just for pleasure, ffs. You need to take a history lesson in early stages of agriculture, which is basically everything before mid 1700. Where everything was small scaled, if you had a bad season, you had no money. You had to eat off your life stock. If you go back 90 years, we had a great depression and a dust bowl. Which affected most of the damn agriculture area of the United States, cause we were too stuck up to rotate our damn farm land out like the damn Indians taught us 200 years before hand. So get your modern idealistic out of here.