Vegetarianism is morally wrong. I want to set aside the ‘usual’ arguments for/against vegetarianism. This will not cover health, environmental impact, animal intelligence or self-awareness. These points do not effect where the bigger moral quandary lies.
Let us explore the possibility that a difference can be made. Vegetarians who do not eat meat say that demand can be decreased, and thus can production. This results in lower loss of animal life.
Before fewer cattle are slaughtered, it is likely that the mortality rate would increase instead. Farmers who do not have the revenue to support their livestock will slaughter what they cannot continue to support. Even repurposing a percentage of livestock to production of methane or dairy would not compensate for the loss. With this fresh slaughter, supply for meat will go up and prices will go down.
Let us not think of the loss of animal life if the industry collapsed altogether and meat fell out of favor. Without the industry to supply money to buy feed or grazing land, livestock will not be fed. If this industry collapsed overnight, livestock would starve to death.
Decreasing demand, even gradually, means you are preventing the birth of countless livestock. Let’s focus on that. They will never be born. Is it morally right to decide that something in particular should never exist because you don’t agree with its life cycle? Is not being allowed to experience life at any better than having your life ended by another species preying on you?
To be clear, these creatures have been serving in this function for literally thousands of years. This is a symbiotic relationship. In so many ways, their strength is our strength. We have depended on them and they depend on us. If things were different, we’d need to morally accept the lack of proliferation of the species or even their very existence as we know them today. If those that are left are released into the wild, the impact they would have on the ecosystem would also be profound. It would be horrible to attempt to correct a mistake and only make things much worse in the process.
Animal cruelty is a terrible thing. I agree that our livestock—as with all life—should be treated respectfully, and not be abused. It is my opinion that those who express their passion over being vegetarian should repurpose their energy to that end. They are boasting the morality of doing something that would lead to the destruction of these species. All the while, millions of animals are being abused. Even if you have health, religious, spiritual or simple dietary preference (ie flavor/texture) concerns, please consider the moral implications of what happens to our livestock.
actually, i think the only truly moral thing to do is for all humans to resort to cannibalism. by doing so, we can save all the little furry creatures and all of the sensitive vegatables and plants. it would cut down on the global human carbon footprint and would solve overpopulation.
This is why vegetarianism, although I consider it healthier than omnivorism, is not a solution to save animals. Less demand for animals means less domestication. Less domestication means less population. Consider for example the number of domesticated cats versus the number of feral cats that were born in the wild. The populations of wild cats in many areas are not too good.
Vegetarianism is a very poor excuse to save animals. A better way to save animals is to educate people about ecosystems and develop habitat for animals. An omnivore who did this would be helping animals more than a vegetarian who didn't.
The most respectable animal lover I've ever met was a hardcore hunter. He owns a local gun shop. He hunts animals, but he also recognizes the natural order of the food chain. There is a natural balance to the world. It is this balance, and not the number of animals slain or consumed, which must be maintained. Predation is a fact of this planet, regardless of how many humans choose to become vegetarians.
I don't see any logic in anything you just posted.
"Less demand for animals means less domestication. Less domestication means less population".
Yeah, but what you forgot is that for the most part you are talking about chickens and cattle, two species that don't really survive on their own, or contribute to any ecosystems.
" Consider for example the number of domesticated cats versus the number of feral cats that were born in the wild. The populations of wild cats in many areas are not too good."
What does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? Feral cats are a problem in many areas, for better or for worse. Doesn't relate anything to the topic at hand.
"Vegetarianism is a very poor excuse to save animals. A better way to save animals is to educate people about ecosystems and develop habitat for animals. An omnivore who did this would be helping animals more than a vegetarian who didn't."
You still seem to have no clue on what "animal rights" vegetarians are saying. And I separate out different branches of vegetarianism - could be for many reasons - health, religion, or animal rights. But again, what does boycotting the eating of mainly chickens and cattle have anything to do with protecting herd populations or species??? We ain't over in Africa on the Serengheti protecting wild game herds - we are for the most part talking the consumption of factory raised animals in the U.S. And I don't consider a factory farm in Arkansas to resemble any semblence of an "ecosystem".
"The most respectable animal lover I've ever met was a hardcore hunter. He owns a local gun shop. He hunts animals, but he also recognizes the natural order of the food chain. There is a natural balance to the world. It is this balance, and not the number of animals slain or consumed, which must be maintained. Predation is a fact of this planet, regardless of how many humans choose to become vegetarians"
Finally I can come close to agreeing with you on something, although I do think that some of the most dedicated animal lovers have been those that don't kill or eat them, although I have done both. But what does killing deer or wild turkey or rabbit have anything to do with the subject at hand. Game species are game species......People in this country eat factory raised animals. A completely different animal, pardon the pun. You seem to be comparing deer to factory raised chickens to lions roaming the plains of Africa all in one fell swoop.
Edit -I can see the vague point that you are making here. That ecosystems need to be protected. But very few actually do it. Hunters donate money to buy land to protect habitat of species that they kill, usually birds. They aren't giving money to protect African savannahs that don't allow hunting. People need to do more, that is understood. But I will give you this analogy. Some people are ardently opposed to abortion. I am not going to tell them that if they really want to protect children they should donate and get involved in outfits that help disadvantaged children and not worry about abortion. Yeah, it would be great if they or anyone did it, but they have a moral problem with abortion so all of the other issues are really just side issues to them. Same with people who don't eat animals for moral reasons. Whether they are involved in protecting habitat or not.
Vegetarianism is the right way forward. I am not telling you to become one, as for many of us we put our desires first,before asking ourselves what is right and wrong. i am only asking you to make the decision for yourself:
Is breeding animals for their body meat, keeping them shut in a dark barn from the second they are born, never to step outside wrong???
And what about stealing caring mothers babies and sending them off to be gassed, or
chopped. The fate of all darie cows would be to have their throat slit , the same as any beef bred cow.Every hamburger starts with an animal begging for its life.Its like some horror movie, walking down the ile watching your friends being killed, waiting for your turn.
What would we think if that was what happened to humans? aren't animals just as intellegent, or at least have the same feelings and emotions as us? of course they do.
So i trust that a humane person, would chose the right answer- are animals bodies ours to eat?
Your argument for ecosystems is exactly why vegetarianism is morally right.
Factory livestock farms aren't just cruel to animals when they're slaughtered, but for their entire lives. Imagine if your entire life was confined to small bedroom with 30 other people stuffed in with you.
You'd go your entire life without ever spreading your arms full length, and be force fed food that only fattens you with nearly zero nutrition plus massive amounts of antibiotics to keep diseases from killing you all off prematurely. Because of your added hormones and force fed diet your intestines may even explode with your gut hanging on the ground for the rest of your short life.
But without factory farms, there wouldn't be enough cattle available to feed the worlds 6 billion people if raised in a natural cruelty free grazing lifestyle. Only if a much larger portion of the human population were vegetarian would this be possible.
Then again, if inhumane livestock techniques were eliminated, the cost of meat would increase to the point that a more vegetarian diet would be the only option for much of the worlds population. IMO, a win/win.
Why would "all" meat have to come from commercial animal farms for the point to be valid? It's just as valid as a majority (which it is). The fact is there just isn't enough room or resources to feed 6 billion people on earth with free roaming, naturally raised livestock - not even close.
ok this is my first time on this website but i had to register to show you the errors in your post:
"Vegetarians who do not eat meat say that demand can be decreased, and thus can production. This results in lower loss of animal life. Before fewer cattle are slaughtered, it is likely that the mortality rate would increase instead. Farmers who do not have the revenue to support their livestock will slaughter what they cannot continue to support. Even repurposing a percentage of livestock to production of methane or dairy would not compensate for the loss. With this fresh slaughter, supply for meat will go up and prices will go down."
no theres less loss of life because yes, more animals died at that point in time than they would have if the farmer hadnt lost some of the money he would have earned if no one had turned vegeterian, however now that the herd is reduced aslong as those people who turned vegeterian stay vegeterian, then he has a smaller herd of animals for the rest of his farmer life and each time it comes to slaughtering his animals he kills less than he would have with a bigger herd
"Let us not think of the loss of animal life if the industry collapsed altogether and meat fell out of favor. Without the industry to supply money to buy feed or grazing land, livestock will not be fed. If this industry collapsed overnight, livestock would starve to death."
If everyone went vegan overnight we'd have the same compassion for humans as animals and thus would not let these animals starve and give them aid as we would in a sunami situation for people, as it takes less land to supply a population on vegetation than on meat (fact) we would have exess land from where we used to keep animals for meat and since everyones turned into compassionate vegans overnight in the goverment aswell they would desegnate the now not needed land to nature parks for the animals to live in and employ people to take care of them i.e. the now farmers, provide food and breed them back to their previous wild states so they could survive on their own eventualy
"Decreasing demand, even gradually, means you are preventing the birth of countless livestock. Let’s focus on that. They will never be born. Is it morally right to decide that something in particular should never exist because you don’t agree with its life cycle? Is not being allowed to experience life at any better than having your life ended by another species preying on you?"
if humans where being bread kept in captivity within certain land and where killed after a few years, wouldnt you prefer that you sterilise say 75% of the population and put them into nature parks not to be killed ever again
"To be clear, these creatures have been serving in this function for literally thousands of years. This is a symbiotic relationship. In so many ways, their strength is our strength. We have depended on them and they depend on us. If things were different, we’d need to morally accept the lack of proliferation of the species or even their very existence as we know them today. If those that are left are released into the wild, the impact they would have on the ecosystem would also be profound. It would be horrible to attempt to correct a mistake and only make things much worse in the process."
no you could employ the farmers to look after them as they do now and breed the sheep with less fur and longer legs, the cows with biggest horns etc
"Animal cruelty is a terrible thing. I agree that our livestock—as with all life—should be treated respectfully, and not be abused. It is my opinion that those who express their passion over being vegetarian should repurpose their energy to that end. They are boasting the morality of doing something that would lead to the destruction of these species. All the while, millions of animals are being abused. Even if you have health, religious, spiritual or simple dietary preference (ie flavor/texture) concerns, please consider the moral implications of what happens to our livestock."
no it is better to let them have a full life rather than killing them in the middle just because they died in apsolute no pain or fear
Home
Why Vegetarianism is Wrong 
