I'm looking for a partner to debate the ethics of eating meat.

[Conscious Z]

I would like to debate the issue of eating meat. I will be taking the position that eating meat is unethical in almost all circumstances, and my partner will be taking the opposing view, that eating meat is not unethical, or at least that it is ethical in more than the rarest circumstances.

The debate will assume the existence of moral truth as I do not wish to go on tangents debating the justification for moral claims generally. I do not care if your defense of eating meat is secular or Biblical -- either is fine. If it is Biblical, I will even try to address whether a Christian is justified in eating meat.

I'm flexible on the terms of the debate. I was thinking that we could do a 500 word limit with five days in between rounds, but I'm flexible.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If you don't get any takers in a day or two, I can promote this for you.

Mark

I would like to debate the issue of eating meat. I will be taking the position that eating meat is unethical in almost all circumstances, and my partner will be taking the opposing view, that eating meat is not unethical, or at least that it is ethical in more than the rarest circumstances.

The debate will assume the existence of moral truth as I do not wish to go on tangents debating the justification for moral claims generally. I do not care if your defense of eating meat is secular or Biblical -- either is fine. If it is Biblical, I will even try to address whether a Christian is justified in eating meat.

I'm flexible on the terms of the debate. I was thinking that we could do a 500 word limit with five days in between rounds, but I'm flexible.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I would like to debate the issue of eating meat. I will be taking the position that eating meat is unethical in almost all circumstances, and my partner will be taking the opposing view, that eating meat is not unethical, or at least that it is ethical in more than the rarest circumstances.

The debate will assume the existence of moral truth as I do not wish to go on tangents debating the justification for moral claims generally. I do not care if your defense of eating meat is secular or Biblical -- either is fine. If it is Biblical, I will even try to address whether a Christian is justified in eating meat.

I'm flexible on the terms of the debate. I was thinking that we could do a 500 word limit with five days in between rounds, but I'm flexible.

I have started three promotion threads; one in Ethics and Morality
(The Ethics of Eating Meat), and one each in General Theology(The Ethics of Eating Meat) and one in Christian Philosophy and Ethics(The Ethics of Eating Meat); these Christian Only Forums, but is the busiest one here at CF. Hopefully we will get some interest.

Mark

 

[Nithavela]

Which of the dozen or so secular moral philosophies would you like to take as a basis for this?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

not up for it .... but if i were i would argue meat eating is ethical all the same, only less so than abstinance. ethical conduct is graded rather than 0 or 1. for me all conscious life aims at the ethical, clumsy and unwitting or skillful and tuned in. in fact imo conscious life may BE ethics.

 

[Nithavela]

I'll take the lack of a response as a disinterest in debating me, then.

 

[Conscious Z]

I'll take the lack of a response as a disinterest in debating me, then.

Hey, sorry, I was out of town and away from my computer. I have no disinterest in debating you.

I'm not sure how to answer your question, however. In fact, I'm not sure what you mean by the "dozen or so secular moral philosophies." Are you referring to specific philosophies about morality, such as consequentialism or deontology? Or are you referring to some well-known secular arguments against eating meat?

 

[Conscious Z]

not up for it .... but if i were i would argue meat eating is ethical all the same, only less so than abstinance. ethical conduct is graded rather than 0 or 1. for me all conscious life aims at the ethical, clumsy and unwitting or skillful and tuned in. in fact imo conscious life may BE ethics.

Of course morality isn't binary, but that's not to say that specific issues can't be ethical or unethical in and of themselves. Ceteris paribus, does eating meat make one's actions more or less ethical? Of course, there is likely some unethical consequence of almost any action I take, even if it is unintended. I can buy a Prius to reduce my carbon footprint, but I still might accidentally hit a squirrel on the way to the grocery store. That doesn't mean that limiting carbon emissions is neither good nor bad.

 

[Nithavela]

Hey, sorry, I was out of town and away from my computer. I have no disinterest in debating you.

I'm not sure how to answer your question, however. In fact, I'm not sure what you mean by the "dozen or so secular moral philosophies." Are you referring to specific philosophies about morality, such as consequentialism or deontology? Or are you referring to some well-known secular arguments against eating meat?

It's just that in one set of philosophies, something might be ethical, while the exact same thing would be unethical in another set of morals.

 

[Conscious Z]

It's just that in one set of philosophies, something might be ethical, while the exact same thing would be unethical in another set of morals.

Well, while I certainly don't want the discussion to get sidetracked on meta-ethical debates, I'm not going to be arguing that eating meat is merely inconsistent with a given moral philosophy. I'm going to be arguing that it actually is unethical. For example, rather than saying "If everyone in the world ate as much meat as Americans, the world couldn't sustain that level of meat production, therefore you shouldn't eat meat," I'm going to make an argument designed to compel just about everyone, regardless of their particular moral leaning (rather than assume a given moral philosophy, such as the universal maxim principle in Kantian ethics I hinted at above). If he or she wishes, my opponent is free to suggest that we adhere to a different moral system that might give us different conclusions on the morality of eating meat. Of course, I do not want my opponent to argue for nihilism or something totally crazy. There should at least be common ground that there is some kind of ethical truth, or that we should at least act as though there is ethical truth.

 

[Conscious Z]

Bump....I'd still love a partner for this debate.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Bump....I'd still love a partner for this debate.

Jesus is God and Jesus ate fish (a form of meat) God can do no wrong therefore eating meat is okay for those who are in union with Jesus Christ.

QED

 

[MoreCoffee]

And a thought about the horrors of vegetarianism!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUcR-_uqcmk

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

I was a vegan for about 13-14 years. This really isn't a debate that can go on, it's simple if you're a Christian.

I'm not quite sure if Christ would approve of the slaughter houses, but eating meat is not against the rules of the Word. Debating someone who doesn't believe in the bible completely negates their side of the argument in your eyes.

Matthew 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

 

[Conscious Z]

Jesus is God and Jesus ate fish (a form of meat) God can do no wrong therefore eating meat is okay for those who are in union with Jesus Christ.

QED

You're assuming that something being acceptable for a person to do 2,000 years ago makes it acceptable for them to do now. That isn't the case. If one needed to cause the suffering of an animal in order to live in Jesus' time, that is a totally separate issue from one choosing to cause such suffering today.

Abstaining from meat has not always been a choice man has had. It's taken technological advances such as the ability to supplement with B12 (for example) to make it possible.

 

[Conscious Z]

I was a vegan for about 13-14 years. This really isn't a debate that can go on, it's simple if you're a Christian.

I'm not quite sure if Christ would approve of the slaughter houses, but eating meat is not against the rules of the Word. Debating someone who doesn't believe in the bible completely negates their side of the argument in your eyes.

Matthew 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "This really isn't a debate that can go on." I certainly think a Christian argument can be raised that eating meat is unethical. No, the Bible doesn't say "It is a sin to eat meat." It also doesn't say "It is a sin to look at porn on your computer." It establishes some principles from which we derive the former, and I'd be willing to argue that it does the same for the eating of meat.

As you mentioned, however, the source of meat even fifty years ago is far different from the source of meat now. The vast majority of Americans eat factory farmed meat, and there is no question that such a practice is unethical by any standard.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "This really isn't a debate that can go on." I certainly think a Christian argument can be raised that eating meat is unethical. No, the Bible doesn't say "It is a sin to eat meat." It also doesn't say "It is a sin to look at porn on your computer." It establishes some principles from which we derive the former, and I'd be willing to argue that it does the same for the eating of meat.

As you mentioned, however, the source of meat even fifty years ago is far different from the source of meat now. The vast majority of Americans eat factory farmed meat, and there is no question that such a practice is unethical by any standard.

It does say looking at porn on the computer is a sin, it's lust.

There is nothing ethically wrong with eating meat, now how we conduct our slaughter houses, that's a different story.

You'd have to argue this with atheist. Any Christian would arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[Conscious Z]

It does say looking at porn on the computer is a sin, it's lust.

There is nothing ethically wrong with eating meat, now how we conduct our slaughter houses, that's a different story.

You'd have to argue this with atheist. Any Christian would arrive at the same conclusion.

It doesn't say looking at porn on a computer is sin; it says lust is a sin. We derive that looking at porn is sin from the principle that lust is a sin.

Similarly, I'd be prepared to argue that the Bible lays out the necessary principles to allow us to derive that eating meat when we don't need in order to survive is sinful.

I don't doubt that a Christian would likely come to the same conclusion as you; that a Christian would disagree with me should make it a good debate. After all, why would I want to debate someone who agrees with me?

Are you willing to debate?

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Acts 10:10-24

And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”

We eat to survive, gluttony is another issue. But I don't care who they are, a Christian cannot find grounds that eating meat is ethically wrong. The bible says different, there is absolutely no grounds for us to even debate it.

What you're wanting to debate is something different, the morality and what does the bible say of slaughter houses. Which no, I don't think Christ would be too approving of it, but I have no idea since His ways are greater than mine.

You also have pointed out that you want to have a debate on if eating meat when it's not only to survive is "sinful". You need to have this debate with a secularist because we have clear instructions as Christians.

 

[Conscious Z]

Acts 10:10-24

And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”

I'm not denying that god endorsed eating in Biblical days. As I said before, however, something can be ethical for a person 2,000 years ago but unethical for a person today.

We eat to survive, gluttony is another issue.

Eating meat has nothing to do with survival. It has to do with taste preferences.

But I don't care who they are, a Christian cannot find grounds that eating meat is ethically wrong. The bible says different, there is absolutely no grounds for us to even debate it.

I disagree, which is grounds enough for a debate. I'm still confused as to why you think us disagreeing on the matter means we couldn't debate it.

What you're wanting to debate is something different, the morality and what does the bible say of slaughter houses. Which no, I don't think Christ would be too approving of it, but I have no idea since His ways are greater than mine.

No, I want to debate the morality of eating meat in general, which is what I indicated from the beginning.

You also have pointed out that you want to have a debate on if eating meat when it's not only to survive is "sinful". You need to have this debate with a secularist because we have clear instructions as Christians.

I misspoke. My goal is debate the ethics, not the sin. While I would prefer to have the debate from a secular standpoint, I still think it would be a good debate from a Biblical standpoint.

I don't want to keep going back and forth on the topic itself, as this forum is for debate proposals rather than debates themselves. It sounds like you are pretty firmly against the motion, so why not do the debate?