Much has been made over the question of whether eating meat is moral. The question generated so much debate because so many of the participants in the debate were atheists without any clear moral code. Lacking this, the only moral compass they possess is that of the society they are born in or that of their upbringing. In such a case the question of whether or not we are justified in inflicting pain on animals for our benefit comes down to nothing more than personal opinion and people will often defend irrational personal opinions vigorously.
If we contrast this with the unchanging truth of The Bible then our problems are resolved. Nowhere in the Bible is eating meat condemned. Furthermore the Old Testament tells us which animals we can eat. The New Testament expanded the potential smorgasbord. Given that the bible (and therefore God) has no objection to our eating meat there is obviously no moral objection on principal.
I see that the issue of "whence morality" was raised in the debate, but that nobody wanted to talk about it.
What about animal suffering?
The Old Testament specifies that animals be bled to death. Although authorities differ on the issue, it seems likely to me that the experience is unpleasant for the animal. Consequently there is no obvious reason for us to care about animal suffering.
28 comments
What I see here is someone using a definition of Bible-based morality to justify the position that they prefer. He just happens to be doing this over the issue of eating meat. This is an old argument for whether something is moral because God says so, or whether morality is something we determine by thinking for ourselves.
Personally, I prefer to think we determine what is moral as a society by determining it through thought and discussion, whether something harms us or others and determining the best approach that benefits us in society. This is preferable to something like, oh I don't know, using a book written by iron-age peasants.
Do you base all your decisions in life on the writings from archaic books, littered with contradictions?
"people will often defend irrational personal opinions vigorously."
They do indeed, and you are a perfect example of someone who does this.
Most atheists have the clear moral code of the Golden Rule.
Religious people's moral compass is also from the society they are born in, or that of their upbringing. American Christian morality is not identical to Finnish Christian morality, and Catholic morality is not identical to Protestant morality.
"people will often defend irrational personal opinions vigorously"
Yeah, we usually call them "fundamentalists".
The truth of the Bible has changed several times, not just with different translations, but with different sets of contents and different interpretations, and with the agendas of the people financing the translations (see "Queen" James).
Eating some kinds of meat is condemned in several places in the Bible. Haven't you read it?
God doesn't care about animals suffering, so there is no obvious reason for you to care about them?
And you're the one with the "Good Moral", according to you?
Normal people call that sociopathy.
When you hear an animal shriek in pain and you do nothing to alleviate that pain, you are just as much a monster as the guy who refuses to help another human being in pain. It's called empathy and if you don't have it, you might just be a sociopath.
"If we contrast this with the unchanging truth of The Bible then our problems are resolved."
Yeah, problems like genocide, slavery, shellfish, lying, etc. All clearly settled by the Bible.
Consequently there is no obvious reason for us to care about animal suffering.
The Old Testament also says that you cannot work your animals on the Sabbath, that you cannot muzzle an ox while it's threshing; to care for your flocks; not to plow an ox and a donkey together. To finish off, this verse from Proverbs 12 seems most appropriate:
"A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."
So atheists eat meat out of a lack of morality,
but fundies eat meat because they have morality.
@Doubting Thomas
I'm an atheist who likes eating meat. Where does that put me?
In hell, of course. I'll meet you there, later, for barbecue. Shrimps on the Barbie- mmmmmmm.
Not surprising. Your god doesn't care at all about human suffering, it makes sense that he won't be bothered to consider the suffering of animals.
Yeah, I think I'll stay vegetarian, thanks. It's better for my karma. And my cholesterol.
Many Buddhists, Hinduists, Jews & Christians would like a word with you.
Also, atheists don't have a clear moral code? But people who worship the "unchanging" Bible, which contradicts itself (and reality) in several places, DO?
Go on, pull the other one.
"Fundies have come to RationalWiki? Oh joy."
Look at the fossil record of a lot of the creationism pages. It being an essay by a registered user is novel, but RationalWiki attracts a ton of fundies. >_>
Yeah, RW gets plenty of nutcases. They write shit essays like this, they complain about articles like racial realism, mental illness denial, and Bitcoin, and they leave when the trolling gets boring. We could probably post a lot of their crap on here. Don't confuse this for an RW regular making a fundie remark though. The user named Tolerance wasn't exactly mainstream.
(Although I think Ehrenstein could perhaps also have made it on here back in the day...)
Also: if atheists get their morality from their societal upbringing, how do you explain Peter Singer?
"Nowhere in the Bible is eating meat condemned."
Also, nowhere in the bible is the eating or babies condemned, nor the the electrotorture of nuns for that matter.
Slavery, however, that's a different matter. The bible has plenty to say about slavery...
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Well... at least Tolerance here admits that atheists as non religious people even HAVE a moral compass and that it comes from their own upbringing and the society they are born to rather than from the Christian God and the Bible.
That's a good first step I guess. Baby steps, Tolerance, baby steps! You can do it!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.