Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights

Hi all! (First post - please be gentle)I am not convinced that we can honestly justify killing/eating animals.
But I also do not think that most people actually want to face the truth ("You can't handle the truth!" )There appears to be a lot of cognitive dissonance around the eating of meat.
e.g. My girlfriend is a carnivore (I'll use that term to stop any giggling from the back of the room).
But if I suggest that she should visit a slaughter-house to see exactly how meat is processed: she refuses (and gets a little upset).Also, the amount of people that are able/willing to kill animals themselves is surprisingly small.I watched a 'Big Brother'-like TV show (years ago) where a group of people were put on a remote Scottish (I think) island and left to their own devices. One of them worked in a butchers, so he volunteered to kill the animals for eating. He managed to kill one cow before refusing to kill any more animals. Even the butcher couldn't face the killing.I guess that it must be a difficult thing to come to terms with. Imagine the shift in mind-set that is required to combine "I've eaten meat for my whole life" with "Killing animals is horrific".There seems to be lots of reasons to not eat meat, but as a society we can't seem to stop.
Maybe the aliens will feel the same: "I know I shouldn't eat humans - but they are sooo moreish."

I am not sure what 'difference' you are referring to, but it seems that you are agreeing with me that people have a problem reconciling the killing of animals and the eating of meat. I agree. People are no longer inured to the act of killing animals for meat. I believe you. Ask anyone that regularly kills animals: "Do you have a problem killing animals?" - I would be surprised if they said yes. But I would still suggest that they are in the minority. I have seen evidence to the contrary. You think that people that can't kill harmless animals are timid, cowardly and effeminate?Hmm...This ended up looking like an attack on you, Hooah.
I am not angry or shouting so please believe me - no offense is intended.

I'll just quote a selection of your sentences. If you feel I have moved them out of context then I will apologise and try again. I do not agree that 'it is normal' is a valid argument for us doing something. (It used to be normal to live in caves.)
That seems to me to be a self perpetuating state. I completely agree that morals/mores are subjective and closely linked to our culture.
They are frequently contradictory and sometimes just plain nonsensical.
But they are also not written in stone. We can (and do) frequently adjust our moral outlook.
As an example in western culture: the wearing of fur has gone from being seen as a sign of wealth to being seen as an act of cruelty. And this change happened during a single lifetime.My original point was that a big reason why people (particularly in the richer countries) don't change their moral outlook is that people have a hard time accepting that what they are currently doing (and what they have always done) is actually abhorrent to them (i.e. kill animals).
This causes them to rationalise their behaviour by saying things like "We have to eat meat" when that has been proved to not be true.

I was not saying that being 'normal' is self-perpetuating.
I was saying that the argument "It is normal therefore we should continue doing it" is self-perpetuating. I do think that 'normal' morals change (see paragraph below) - and often should change. As our understanding (of everything) increases we have more to consider when deciding the 'right' or 'wrong' of our actions. I would suggest that a lot of behaviour that was detrimental to women was morally fine in the past and is now morally wrong. A lot of people refuse to be involved in the killing of animals - but they happily eat the meat because...they enjoy it? This seems like a conflict to me. That seems as hypocritical as a human-rights activist buying clothes made in sweat-shops.I think that people would rather argue that their current behaviour is not immoral, than have the discomfort of accepting that they were wrong to eat meat.Please note: this is related only to making the decision that eating meat is morally wrong.
I do not think that people that stop eating meat because (e.g.) their doctor advised them to, would have the same issues.

Not pooing on the street is good for the species. It discourages disease.
And I hate treading in dog poo - so if humans did it on the streets too then I'd probably be very peeved! I have heard similar things about veganism. But vegetarianism doesn't have the same problems.
I am a vegetarian kinda fat guy I don't know how to break this to you gently - but the The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog does not exist.Edited by Pseudonym, : Extended a quote to contain what it was meant to contain in the first place!

Simplistically: my moral viewpoint stems from the pain and suffering involved in the (IMO) unnecessary wholesale raising and slaughter of animals.As plants do not have a central nervous system - I am unsure how they would feel pain/suffering.

I don't say it is morally OK for our ancestors to have eaten meat.
You are the one saying that - and you are a meat eater, yes? My answer to your first question is 'No, I do not'.
Generally, people have been selfish to the point of stupidity in their treatment of this planet and everything on it.
The destruction, death and extinction caused by man over the ages is something I find disgusting.Damn - I sound like a hippy!

Sorry for the late replies, but you all raised some very interesting points and I wanted to make sure I had the time to give them the consideration they deserved...and I went and had a nap (I blame my age). I agree that by nature we are omnivores. But we are continually moving beyond our base nature.
Our intelligence (and our technology) adds a very real complication to everything we do.
No longer are we stuck in the 'survive + reproduce' cycle - instead we have musicians, painters, people that choose to not have children, etc.
This means we now have the ability to change our behaviour to something not predetermined by our ancestry.Since we have the options to do far more things now (and we know more things too) - that, in turn, means that our judgement has to be far more sophisticated too.Choosing how we behave gets more complicated the more we develop.
A long time ago is was simply: "Kill bear or die.".
Now it is: "Is it an endangered species? Can we tranquilise the bear? Can we get in our car and ignore it? Can we make money selling its fur? Do I have a personal vendetta against bears?, etc."

Yes, we have the ability to sustain ourselves without meat. I agree that this wasn't always the case (if you go back far enough).
It is unclear what proportion of early hunter/gatherer's diet was meat - some say a lot, some say not much.
But since the introduction of agriculture meat has often been a rare luxury for all but the rich. (Just to clarify: when I used the word 'able' I meant 'psychologically able' not 'skilled'.)
I expect that the people you describe as unable/unwilling to grow their own crops are limited by knowledge and/or inclination - not by an actual aversion to farming.
The amount of people psychologically able to become nurses/doctors/surgeons far surpasses the amount of people able to work in abattoirs.
I agree that this is mostly due to personality and culture - which brings us back to mores and morals. But they do not intend for those horrific things to occur to them, sometimes to the point of denying that those things are even possible.
Even in war, people have to be psychologically trained (arguably brainwashed) to actually go fight.
But, after training, many soldiers still suffer from PTSD. I used the word 'horrific' on purpose. To see the reaction of people when faced with killing an animal, the best word I could find was 'horror' - "An intense, painful feeling of repugnance". I have never seen laziness cause that kind of reaction - not even in teenagers. You say that there are not lots of reasons to stop eating meat and then you start listing them. And those reasons are 'obvious directives'.
There are more reasons if you want them (e.g. Greenhouse gas emission from livestock, higher water consumption by livestock, overuse of antibiotics in cattle, etc.)

Sorry.
I couldn't resist. (Bolding is mine!)

OK. I was a bit pushed for time when I replied. That is why I posted a simplistic (as stated) answer.But I can see by your post that you are here to fight and insult.
Accusing me of lying and deception is unjustified and wrong.
If that is your idea of a discussion then I end it here, as I am not willing to play that game.

To quote that most famous of logisticians:
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

This discussion has drifted a long way from my actual proposition.
Anyhoo...A little clarification:
My morals guide me and only me. I do not use them to direct the behaviour of others.
Morals tend to be 'black and white' whereas life is mainly grey. This is why my morals are a guide and not a law.
They can occasionally conflict. This conflict often leads to my morals being changed.
I am also open to new information which can also lead to changes. This question IMO is almost meaningless. Unfortunately, rather than just say "this question is almost meaningless" - I tried to answer it by attempting to put myself 'in their shoes'.
This has resulted in us discussing a worthless answer to a meaningless question. I'll be more careful in future. If they have the capacity to have morals, then you had best ask them.
If you are asking me if I think it is morally wrong for me to eat meat, then the answer is yes. That logic only works if you think that our own morals overrides all others' morals (or lack of) - which I don't. Morals are "a matter of personal choice".
We are free to use our sensibilities to judge our own actions as we deem fit. Are you saying that if you had the desire to eat the bear, then you would ignore all other considerations (moral and otherwise) and just kill it?
Are you saying that if your actions are allowed by one of your morals (e.g. eating meat is OK) then any 'counter-morals' (e.g. not killing a rare species) are ignored?

So you want me to identify a single 'moral law' that everyone applies to themselves?
Without asking everyone, I couldn't possibly answer that.
Or do you think I should be making moral decisions for them?There are few reasons to eat meat and many reasons to stop.
But what you actually do (or consider moral) is something you have to decide for yourself.