Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights

Hi greyseal Feel free to butt in any time. Why is it wrong to kill an intelligent animal that gives its consent? You've just given a perfect example of religious dogma that is based on insubstantial bollocks. On the question of pure principle, I would opt for "might makes right" and ignore anthing to the left of that position. Right from the start this debate has been full of presumptions that eating meat (whether of an intelligent animal or a stupid one) must be immoral/wrong, without any clear attempt to explain why. Can you offer any straightforward explanation for why may be wrong?My own opinion is simply that many people are squeamish about killing and eating animals due to their modern upbringing. Those people have the choice not to eat meat, and that's absolutely fine, but I just can't see an objective reason to stop others eating meat on a point of pure principle.

OK, I agree to a certain extent, although the question was "why is it wrong to kill an intelligent animal that gives its consent?" not why is it wrong to eat it.There may be extenuating circumstances, such as sacrificing oneself in a survival situation, or possibly even in a euthanasia situation, where it would not so obviously be a case of insanity and immorality. (Although I believe those situations may not apply to the specific cases given.)

Hi greysealJust had a thought on this point you raised: Is it morally better to stop all farming of animals for meat, milk, skin, etc, which would undoubtedly greatly reduce in number if not altogether extinguish many domesticated species, rather than concentrate on ensuring that they lead healthy, happy lives up to the point that they are killed (quickly and as humanely as possible)?I'm thinking of your cows without a brain. Do they have a better life for never feeling anything at all, never having any kind of awareness of anything at all, compared to a cow that enjoys a happy life grazing in a meadow, mating, and reproducing only to possibly end its life by feeling a bolt in the head for a split second? I don't think so.All life has to die in the end. Is it not better to live and be eaten, than never to live at all? And for something like a cow, that cannot live out its old age in a comfy armchair playing bingo, what better way to go than a quick bolt in the head it never saw coming?

I take your point, but if we're talking about whether or not we should farm animals, this really is the dilemma we're faced with.Again, it raises the question: is our moral concern to do with our behaviour (i.e. is it simply "wrong, period" in any circumstances to eat meat), or is the concern to do with the welfare and survival of the animal to be eaten?I think I've said more than enough on this subject already, so I would summarise my view as follows:- There is nothing fundamentally wrong with eating meat; it is perfectly natural. I still don't think anyone has made a case for it being "wrong, period" on a point of pure principle.- In modern cultures and societies, many people are so removed from the slaughtering process that they have caring instincts that are much more highly developed than their kill-to-eat instincts, and so they are squeamish at the idea of killing and eating animals. Those people are free to make the choice not to eat meat.- It is wrong to farm an animal to eat it if the animal in question is intelligent and sensitive enough to understand it's fate (as in the hypothetical case of aliens farming humans), which would cause it great distress.- It is wrong to cause any needless suffering or low quality of life to any farmed animal (such as intensive factory farming).- It is wrong to hunt any animal to the point of extinction, if for no other reason then at least because you won't be able to sustain the activity!- The above wrongful actions can be superseded by emergency survival necessity. Pretty much anything is fair game in an emergency.