My answer to this question is an unequivocal "No!" of course. If you want to better understand why, Opposing Views is currently hosting an online debate about this issue between the Reason Foundation and the Center For Consumer Freedom representing the "YES" side, and P.E.T.A. and Gary Francione representing the "NO" side.
I would suggest that you read the arguments, leaving aside the comments until you have done so. Let them sink into you but be forewarned if you do eat meat you will quickly realize how ridiculous, unfounded, and dangerous the "YES" arguments - if you can even call them that - truly are. It's almost embarrassing, but I'm biased right. (Yes, on the side of reason and morality.) Both Francione and P.E.T.A. represent well.
After you read the debate, go to the comments; sign up and leave some of your own. Currently the "NO" side has it as far as votes go (there is a vote "yes" or "no" side box), but that's understandable given the enormity of the task of defending the indefensible. It's a great debate with a lot of participants, myself included. Just click on the Opposing Views link above.
Who exactly is "defending the indefensible"?
I think the meat eating side made many valid points which were dismissed by the vegan side by a wave of their hand.
The majority of Americans want more legislation enacted to protect Ag animals from cruelty. Its a no-brainer for me, as I told you before, I rescue felines. How could I not want Ag animals to have humane lives??
The industry doesn't care because it's all about the almighty dollar and it's far cheaper to dope them up, raise them in horrible conditions and slaughter them whilst they are still alive and breathing.
PETA was at the forefront of the issue of wearing hide/fur of endangered species. The entire fashion industry was forced to change because of what PETA made the world aware of.
The same needs to be regarding the Ag industry. Pitting meat eaters against vegitarians and vegans will solve nothing. Together, we can all affect change.
In my opinion, eating meat cannot be defended ethically. It is an indefensible position to claim: "Just because you are not human, your suffering doesn't count." As this is the premise the underlies our relationship to these billions of sentient beings, the entire project is doomed to failure in my opinion.
The debate is quite thoroughgoing over there (in the hundreds now, with rebuttals by Mr. Francione); therefore, nobody is dismissing one side or the other with a "wave of their hand." Your erroneous attack here is pretty telling. Your comment suggests that you are now involved in that debate, so I look forward to discussing this issue further there (and here) in the future.
Well, thats why it's called your opinion Alex. ;)
I sat for an hour and read through two of the threads and yes the vegan folks were blowing off valid data presented by the pro- meat group. I am not senile and I can read on a college educated level. jeez...thanks for dismissing me.
Take care Alex, this just isn't my cup of tea. I can support you with regard to going after the AG industry, the governments lack of action and other things..but not whether eating meat is 'ethical' or not.
Quote:
"Well, that's why it's called your opinion Alex"
Right, just like when I say racism and sexism cannot be ethically justified. Right? Or is this ethical statement different? If yes, tell me why. Your erroneous attack here about us dismissing them seems to be derived from your refusal to engage our arguments. Indeed, this is dismissive: “Well, that's why it's called your opinion Alex :)”
Again, why do you refuse to consider your own premises regarding veal, and the inherent contradiction - following these premises - of eating dairy, Dusty?
Even the pro-meat side of the debate - those participating anyway - haven't argued that we are dismissing their points. What a weak excuse. If you believe that, please participate and show me where I am wrong. As a distant observer, who won't engage in the debate itself, I suppose you could make any judgment you wish.
Gary Francione and P.E.T.A. actually took the time to respond, point by point, to the pro-meat side. Which was responded to by the other side. "Dismissive"? How absurd.
The material is difficult, and our arguments, while sound, make people feel uncomfortable. But that is no reason to leave the conversation. Indeed, taking your arguments against companion animal cruelty to their logical conclusion raises interesting questions about why you are not a vegetarian.
Thanks for letting us know about this. I joined in.
It is a live debate, Gary. As is "Should We Keep Pets":
http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-we-keep-pets
Thanks!