Comment Social Responsibility, Sustainable Developement (Score 1) 1596
There's one other moral aspect a lot of people don't consider... Beef requires a lot of natural resources to produce for a relatively small return. The world wouldn't be able to support everyone eating like we do in the great states...
The above reason in my mind is the only Moral argument for vegetarianism. Its simple efficiency stats that for the resources it takes to feed one American's meat habit, you can feed something like 20 vegetarians. Look it up, or check this one out.
Unless a vegetarian is preaching to me about global sustainability problems like deforestation for cattle and world hunger (problems that are worthy of attention), I feel they have no moral grounds to stand on. I appreciate it when vegetarians inform me of the health risks associated with meat (and I eat less meat primarily for those reasons), and I respect any and all personal preferences towards food.
Animal rights on the other hand, are a rediculous and inane persuit, not to mention a hypocritical one. Human rights are the only rights that matter. Arguments for vegetarianism that promote the environment and ending starvation pertain to the rights to breath clean air and be fed meal once and a while. To persue the 'comfort' and 'feedom' and 'dignity' of animals over the the same qualities for humans is hypocritical. ESPECIALLY when it concerns animal testing for medical purposes, which is part and parcel the 'animal rights' argument for vegetarianism. We as humans invented the concept of rights, we as humans are the only ones entitled to them, and we are entitled to them equally.
Meat is like oil, its really expensive (environmentally) to harvest and consume, and yet in the developed world (especially America) we pay very little of the cost. If meat (and oil) were priced according to the true social and environmental costs of producing and consuming it, people would eat less of it, and it would become the luxury item that it should be. There's nothing wrong with luxury, as long as its paid for in full. Pay 20 times the cost of beans for that hamburger, and in my eyes, you can eat as many of them as you want. The problem is a market one, and doesn't require violent radical vegetarianism to be solved. It just needs some common cost analysis.
The above reason in my mind is the only Moral argument for vegetarianism. Its simple efficiency stats that for the resources it takes to feed one American's meat habit, you can feed something like 20 vegetarians. Look it up, or check this one out.
Unless a vegetarian is preaching to me about global sustainability problems like deforestation for cattle and world hunger (problems that are worthy of attention), I feel they have no moral grounds to stand on. I appreciate it when vegetarians inform me of the health risks associated with meat (and I eat less meat primarily for those reasons), and I respect any and all personal preferences towards food.
Animal rights on the other hand, are a rediculous and inane persuit, not to mention a hypocritical one. Human rights are the only rights that matter. Arguments for vegetarianism that promote the environment and ending starvation pertain to the rights to breath clean air and be fed meal once and a while. To persue the 'comfort' and 'feedom' and 'dignity' of animals over the the same qualities for humans is hypocritical. ESPECIALLY when it concerns animal testing for medical purposes, which is part and parcel the 'animal rights' argument for vegetarianism. We as humans invented the concept of rights, we as humans are the only ones entitled to them, and we are entitled to them equally.
Meat is like oil, its really expensive (environmentally) to harvest and consume, and yet in the developed world (especially America) we pay very little of the cost. If meat (and oil) were priced according to the true social and environmental costs of producing and consuming it, people would eat less of it, and it would become the luxury item that it should be. There's nothing wrong with luxury, as long as its paid for in full. Pay 20 times the cost of beans for that hamburger, and in my eyes, you can eat as many of them as you want. The problem is a market one, and doesn't require violent radical vegetarianism to be solved. It just needs some common cost analysis.
