T
You've seen the vegan activists, and many are indeed over the top, but not all are. Regardless of this, the argument they usually come down to is ethics. Their question is posed as such, "What is the difference between a cow and a human?" This question is to insinuate that there is an equivalence between the two in terms of consumption and to show the hypocrisy of meat eaters. They wish to equate animals (including humans) as all being sentient and therefore, we have no right to consume them. Their mission then, in this debate, is to eliminate any and all reasons one would have to consume meat. In terms of ethics, they would then argue that meat consumption is immoral.
As a Christian we are at somewhat of a bias, because Jesus, Himself, ate meat. For meat consumption to be immoral one would have to suggest that Jesus partook in an immoral act, therefore making vegans morally superior to Christ. Obviously, Jesus according to the word of God is sinless, and therefore and by implication, meat consumption cannot be immoral. Now it is easy to hide behind such religious beliefs in the view of non-theists, but in terms of Christian circles this is actually quite a sufficient response. To the secular world, however, how can we argue that meat consumption is not immoral?
We could of course go down the presuppositional argument and inform them that their morality without God is simply subjective and therefore they have no right to impose their subjective morals upon everyone because in a world of subjectivity there is no absolute standard of morality. Therefore, meat consumption and veganism are on equal footing.
We also could take this as an opportunity to present to them their sinfulness in God's eyes and how where they think they are morally superior in the area of diet, they fall short in other areas of life. Either way, they too have the burden of proof in order to equate humans with animals, and even have to show why sentience is the measure by which consumption should occur.
You'll be informed in a moment that, for example, there are certain creatures such as muscles and mollusks that do not have such senses that we have and therefore based upon the argument from vegans they ought to be consumed because they do not suffer. This they will take issue with stating that it is an exception, but here then we are now making rules to this, and by who's standard? Who sets the line? Who enforces it?
Do I believe its okay to "murder" a cow and consume it? Yes. But this is not murder, for murder is itself is a moral judgement and again, in a subjective world, they have no foundation to stand on. Is taking the life of an animal justified? Yes. Why? There are nutrients in such animals that are beneficial. Now, yes, there are better options than meat for such nutrients, but who are you to dictate to me which source I choose? Again, vegans live in a world of subjective morality, you'll often see that such people are not Christian but New Age individuals. Often not believing in God, so to state moral superiority would be to state it in a world without a definite standard.
Why do I consume eggs, for example? Am I not robbing the bird of its chicks? Is this equivalent to abortion? Eggs are nutritious, and the cholesterol in them are not, in contrast to vegan propaganda, bad for health. In fact studies have been done by Dr Gundry MD where his patient's cholesterol levels lowered in direct correlation to the amount of egg yolks and shellfish they consumed. There are health benefits to animal consumption, and even if there weren't and it could be made neutral through limitation in diet, then what reason would there be to complete avoidance? To save the life of the animal?
Okay, so why make an animal suffer and die to just please my palette? Why take the life of another creature? First and foremost, there is no equating of man to mammal. In the wild lions take out zebras and I don't see vegans taking issue with this. They take issue, again, with this line of reasoning because such animals are not as mentally capable as us, or have that moral center. My issue with this is to say, who made mental capabilities or capacities the means by which murder is then justified? If taking the life of another creature is murder for us, it has to be for another animal. Cognizance is not an excuse for sin, it is not something that allows one to be acquitted. A wrong is a wrong. If animal and man are both sentient creatures then their mental capacity as a moral agent should by no means dictate their diet.
If such is the case, one could argue that the mentally ill could consume meat. Or for that matter commit any egregious act and be justified. We know this isn't the case. Ignorance is not necessarily bliss in this respect.
So in reality, the vegan has no foundation to stand on to support their moral superiority, no matter if the diet is optimum or not for humanity.
PS: This was all spurred on by watching Roaming Millennial vs Vegan Gains in a debate on a video of hers.
As a Christian we are at somewhat of a bias, because Jesus, Himself, ate meat. For meat consumption to be immoral one would have to suggest that Jesus partook in an immoral act, therefore making vegans morally superior to Christ. Obviously, Jesus according to the word of God is sinless, and therefore and by implication, meat consumption cannot be immoral. Now it is easy to hide behind such religious beliefs in the view of non-theists, but in terms of Christian circles this is actually quite a sufficient response. To the secular world, however, how can we argue that meat consumption is not immoral?
We could of course go down the presuppositional argument and inform them that their morality without God is simply subjective and therefore they have no right to impose their subjective morals upon everyone because in a world of subjectivity there is no absolute standard of morality. Therefore, meat consumption and veganism are on equal footing.
We also could take this as an opportunity to present to them their sinfulness in God's eyes and how where they think they are morally superior in the area of diet, they fall short in other areas of life. Either way, they too have the burden of proof in order to equate humans with animals, and even have to show why sentience is the measure by which consumption should occur.
You'll be informed in a moment that, for example, there are certain creatures such as muscles and mollusks that do not have such senses that we have and therefore based upon the argument from vegans they ought to be consumed because they do not suffer. This they will take issue with stating that it is an exception, but here then we are now making rules to this, and by who's standard? Who sets the line? Who enforces it?
Do I believe its okay to "murder" a cow and consume it? Yes. But this is not murder, for murder is itself is a moral judgement and again, in a subjective world, they have no foundation to stand on. Is taking the life of an animal justified? Yes. Why? There are nutrients in such animals that are beneficial. Now, yes, there are better options than meat for such nutrients, but who are you to dictate to me which source I choose? Again, vegans live in a world of subjective morality, you'll often see that such people are not Christian but New Age individuals. Often not believing in God, so to state moral superiority would be to state it in a world without a definite standard.
Why do I consume eggs, for example? Am I not robbing the bird of its chicks? Is this equivalent to abortion? Eggs are nutritious, and the cholesterol in them are not, in contrast to vegan propaganda, bad for health. In fact studies have been done by Dr Gundry MD where his patient's cholesterol levels lowered in direct correlation to the amount of egg yolks and shellfish they consumed. There are health benefits to animal consumption, and even if there weren't and it could be made neutral through limitation in diet, then what reason would there be to complete avoidance? To save the life of the animal?
Okay, so why make an animal suffer and die to just please my palette? Why take the life of another creature? First and foremost, there is no equating of man to mammal. In the wild lions take out zebras and I don't see vegans taking issue with this. They take issue, again, with this line of reasoning because such animals are not as mentally capable as us, or have that moral center. My issue with this is to say, who made mental capabilities or capacities the means by which murder is then justified? If taking the life of another creature is murder for us, it has to be for another animal. Cognizance is not an excuse for sin, it is not something that allows one to be acquitted. A wrong is a wrong. If animal and man are both sentient creatures then their mental capacity as a moral agent should by no means dictate their diet.
If such is the case, one could argue that the mentally ill could consume meat. Or for that matter commit any egregious act and be justified. We know this isn't the case. Ignorance is not necessarily bliss in this respect.
So in reality, the vegan has no foundation to stand on to support their moral superiority, no matter if the diet is optimum or not for humanity.
PS: This was all spurred on by watching Roaming Millennial vs Vegan Gains in a debate on a video of hers.
But i think it's more along the lines of how the animals are kept and treated before you even kill them. Did you know that for a certain type for meat baby cows are tied down and never allowed to walk to make it more "tender" or whatever.
I think it's more along those lines.
I'm vegetarian not vegan but I dont have a problem with people who eat meat I just can't myself to do it
jk
