3 ms·

If we have a healthy, satisfying alternative - the ethical question of "Is it acceptable to kill or harm individuals unnecessarily?" has a very clear answer no

• necessity 11y ago
  "unnecessarily" -> it is already unnecessary to eat meat, thus unnecessary to kill animals. Anyone can live a perfectly healthy life being a vegetarian, it's even cheaper depending where you live. Thus, by your logic the question "is eating meat nowadays ethically wrong?" should have "a very clear answer no matter who you're talking with". Which obviously is not true. You mention "healthy, satisfying alternative". You accept people eating meat nowadays because according to you it is more satisfying than eating the current alternatives (even though it's not necessary!), so you should always accept the eating of meat (or hunting of animals) as long as people want it over whatever alternative exists. Furthermore, people will always think differently. What is ethically wrong to you is not to me and vice-versa.
  • Falling3 11y ago
    Show me a person who genuinely believes killing others unnecessarily is acceptable and we've got much bigger problems than the ethics of meat. The problem isn't getting people to agree with moral axioms. It's getting people to be consistent with their application of them.
  • Falling3 11y ago
    And yes - by my logic, it's unethical to eat meat. I don't accept it now either.