Bruger:Lhademmor/vegetarisme

Fra Anima Wiki

Mens mange (nok de fleste) mennesker ikke har nogle etiske indvendinger mod at spise kød, er der dog i stigende grad folk som protesterer mod drab på dyr, det at spise dyr og de massivt industrialiserede landbrug som står for langt størstedelen af kødproduktionen.

Nogle kødædere ville nok efter at læse ovenstående påtænke sig at stemple resten af denne artikel som en "rabiat veganers brokkerier og radikale syn på dyr". Det mener jeg ikke selv er helt rigtigt - for det første er jeg ikke rabiat, for det andet er jeg ikke veganer (jeg er faktisk ikke engang vegetar selvom tanken er tiltrækkende) og for det tredje håber jeg på at dette ikke bliver en bunke brokkerier, men forhåbentligt i det mindste en smule rationelt, selvom jeg indrømmet støtter tildelingen af bestemte rettigheder til dyr. Denne artikel beskæftiger sig udelukkende med spisning af dyr som vurderes som havende en bevidsthed og sanselighed (som f.eks. kvæg og grise). Andre væsner, som f.eks. vandmænd, er ikke omfattet her (ikke at der er så mange der spiser vandmænd, men stadigvæk...)

Indholdsfortegnelse 1 Fakta 2 Hvorfor spise kød? 2.1 Argument I: "At spise kød er ligesom at spise grøntsager" 2.2 Argument II: "Det er naturligt at spise kød" 2.3 Argument III: "Dyr føler ikke smerte" 2.4 Argument IV: "Det retfærdiggøres ved at sige undskyld" 2.5 Argument V: "Overbefolkning" 2.6 Argument VI: Dyr har ingen moral 2.7 Argument VII: Sundhed 2.8 Nødvendighed 2.9 Farming plants harms animals 2.10 Farming animals keeps them alive 2.11 As humans, we should protect only human interests 3 Arguments for why eating meat is unethical 3.1 Cause least harm 3.2 Animals have feelings and can suffer 3.3 Animals are not treated well 3.4 Sanctity of life 3.5 Damage to the environment 3.6 Religious opposition 4 Personal Issue (Ethical) or Public Issue (Legal) 5 References 6 See also 7 External links

[redigér] Fakta

Lad os lægge ud med lidt faktuelt materiale før vi begynder den etiske snak: I 1999 blev der globalt set "produceret" 299 millioner ton kød fra landdyr (altså minus fisk f.eks.) - det er talmæssigt set 299.000.000.000 kilo. Tallet forventes at være steget til 465 millioner ton (465.000.000.000 kg.) i 2050.^[1] Fisk, skalddyr og "vanddyr" producerede næsten 120 millioner ton.^[2]

[redigér] Hvorfor spise kød?

Mangt et "almindeligt" menneske har ved mødet med en vegetar spurgt "hvorfor spiser du ikke kød?" Mange vegetarer har dog "brudt" med det vante samfund, så det mest relevante spørgsmål er snarere at spørge sig selv "hvorfor spiser du kød?" For kan man ikke etisk set forsvare sin egen holdning har man ingen ret til at begynde at kritisere andre. Ingen sten i glashuset, capisce?

Derfor bringes her et par grunde til at spise kød.

[redigér] Argument I: "At spise kød er ligesom at spise grøntsager"

At ernære sig fra kød er kemisk set ikke videre forskellig fra at spise planter. Planter og dyr er ikke så voldsomt forskellige som fødevarer.

Modargumenter

• Der er generelt enighed om, at smerte først føles når det via nervetrådene når hjernen. Planter har ingen hjerne, og kan dermed ikke føle smerte. Det hersker der ikke den store uenighed om at dyr kan.
  • Planter føler smerte på en anden måde. Planter har avancerede kemiske forsvarssystemer for at holde angribende insekter og planteædere væk. Visse planter har derudover torne som forsvar.
    • Nogle mener at åbentlyst bevidste væsner (aka. dyr) etisk set rangerer højere end ikke-bevidste planter.
• At spise kød skåner ikke planterne - de fodres bare til kreaturer i stedet.
• Kvægproduktion skader miljøet - f.eks. går 70% af kornproduktionen i USA til dyrefoder^[3], hvilket fører til flere skovrydninger og brug af pesticider.

[redigér] Argument II: "Det er naturligt at spise kød"

Nogle mener at det er nonsens at diskutere om det er etisk forsvarligt at spise kød, fordi det er en ganske naturlig opførsel, som nogle steder er nødvendig for at overleve.

Visse forskere har sagt at kødspisning og jagt i høj grad har bidraget til menneskets udvikling: "Vores forkærlighed for en saftig bøf har over utallige generationer gjort at vores kæbe er blevet mindre, og vi har en forbedret evne til at forarbejde kolesterol og fedt." Specielt førstnævnte argument bliver mange vegetarer mødt med - "jamen der er jo en grund til at vi har vores hjørnetænder!"

Modargumenter

• Nogle kan argumentere fysiologisk og psykologisk for at det overhovedet ikke er naturligt at spise kød, bl.a. pga. utilstrækkelige pH-værdier i mavesyren og vores mangel på kløer eller stærke tænder. Vores "berømte" hjørnetænder forudsætter heller ikke noget som helst om kød; flere andre vegetariske primater og andre planteædere har dem også, og de bruger dem til at gennemtrænge frugt, ikke skind.
• Mange andre "naturlige opførseler" betragtes som modbydelige, hvis de udvises af mennesker. Find selv nogle, jeg kan komme i tanke om en del...
• Mennesker betragtes som moralsk bevidste overfor deres omgivelser på en måde som dyr ikke er. Dermed har vi også et vist ansvar overfor dem, og kan ikke undskylde os med "naturlig opførsel." Det var også oprindeligt naturlig opførsel at bo i små hytter og finde sammen i stammer med høvdinger.
• At henvise til naturen eller henvise til traditionen er begge kendte argumentationsfejl.
• Nogle mennesker mener at valget mellem at spise kød eller ej, ikke er en bevidst etisk beslutning, men en reaktion på opdragelse og samfund.

[redigér] Argument III: "Dyr føler ikke smerte"

Decartes mente at kun ulegemlige sjæle kan føle smerte, og dyr dermed blot er en form for "automatiserede maskiner"

Modargumenter

• Se en gris skrige mens den får skåret halsen over før du begynder at udtale dig om, om dyr kan føle smerte eller ej.

• Dyr som lider eller er stressede producerer endomorfiner på samme måde som mennesker, og har også gavn af lindrende behandling på samme måde

[redigér] Argument IV: "Det retfærdiggøres ved at sige undskyld"

Ja, umiddelbart lyder argumentet lidt underligt, men mange jæger-samler stammer undskylder eller takker et dyr efter at have spist det, og undskylder deres handlinger med at de måtte spise dyret for at overleve.

Modargumenter

• Symbolske gestus retfærdiggør ikke mord (og mon ikke dyret teoretisk set hellere ville forblive i live?)

• I modsætning til jæger-samlerne, har det moderne menneske ikke længere brug for at dræbe dyr for at overleve, og dermed kan mordet ikke retfærdiggøres.

• Undskyldningerne sker på grund af mytologiske, traditionelle overbevisninger - ikke fordi man har ondt af dyret.

[redigér] Argument V: "Overbefolkning"

"Nogle skal jo spise dyrene, hvis ikke Jorden skal blive oversvømmet af dyr"

Modargumenter

• Overbefolkningen af dyr skyldes kødindustrien. Kreaturerne bliver opdrættet for at vi kan spise dem. Hvis man ikke spiste kød, ville de fleste af dyrene overhovedet ikke være der!

[redigér] Argument VI: Dyr har ingen moral

"Man bør kun tildele rettigheder til væsner med samme niveau bevidsthed som mennesker har. Da andre væsner ikke har den samme bevidsthed som mennesker, kan de ikke sætte pris på rettigheder. Dyr som ikke har vores bevidsthed, har ikke retten til at leve.

Modargumenter

• Konceptet om at for at have rettigheder skal man være i stand til at tage ansvar er forkert. Menneske-spædbørn og mentalt retarderede bliver f.eks. tildelt rettigheder, men har ingen ansvar.

• Det er ikke indlysende at det etiske problem med kødspisning afhænger af at tildele dyr rettigheder. Utilitaristiske filosoffer såsom Peter Singer mener at alle væsners interesser bør tages i betragtning; uden nogen henvisning til rettigheder.

[redigér] Argument VII: Sundhed

Nogle mener at de former for fedt som fås fra kød er nødvendige for hjernens udvikling. ^{[Kilde mangler]} Derudover findes Omega 3, som forlænger livet og reducerer medicinske problemer, i store mængder i fisk og mange studier har vist sundhedsmæssige fordele for folk, som ofte spiser fisk og skaldyr.^[4][5] Food and Drug Administration har dog advaret of, at nogle fisk kan indeholde store koncentrationer af giftige tungmetaller (f.eks. kviksølv). Gravide kvinder frarådes ofte at spise bestemte former for fisk under graviditeten.^[6]

Ifølge National Institutes of Health kan det, at ophøre med at spise kød føre til en øget risiko for at udvikle Vitamin B-12 mangelsygdomme. Vitamin B-12 er livsnødvendig, da den kræves ved dannelsen af bestemte former for syrer og næsten alle former for væv. Vitamin B-12 kan ikke modtages direkte fra planter eller dyr, kun bakterier.^[7] Mangel på B-12 er blevet forbundet med Alzheimer's sygdom, og kan resultere i humørsvingninger, depressioner, mental sløvhed, svaghed, udmattelse og hukommelsesproblemer. Nogle studier har vist at vegetariske mødrer har større sandsynlighed for at få børn med bl. a. lavt B-12 indhold^[8], og spædbørn som bliver ammet af vegetariske mødre har specielt forhøjet risiko for at udvikle mangelsygdomme "som kan resultere i permanent neurologisk skade."^[7]

Modargumenter

• At spise vitaminpiller eller mejeriprodukter og æg kan forhindre eller reducere vitamin B-12 mangel.^[7]

• American Dietetic Association har udtalt at "Korrekt planlagte vegetariske kostplaner er sunde, næringsmæssigt dækkende og giver sundhedsmæssige fordele ved forhindring og behandling af visse sygdomme."^[9]

• Kød er ikke den eneste kilde til Omega 3. Det findes også i store mængder i bl. a. hørfrø og valnødder.^[10] Dette er dog ikke den samme slags Omega 3 som findes i fisk, og hvorvidt kroppen kan omdanne de forskellige slags Omega 3 til det nødvendige, som DHA, er endnu uklart.^[11] Veganske DHA-kilder kommer fra algae (samme sted i øvrigt hvor fiskene får deres omega 3 fedtsyrer), og kan købes både som supplement og tilsat i visse former for sojamælk.^[12]

[redigér] Nødvendighed

I visse kulturer, f.eks. Inuitternes, er det ikke muligt at overleve uden kød på grund af klimaet og den lokale flora og fauna. Visse områder, specielt bjergområder, er ikke gode at have landbrug på, men kan stadig bruges som græsningsarealer for kreaturer.

Modargumenter

• Dette er ikke noget argument for mennesker som har et valg angående om de vil spise kød.
• Selv hvis et område ikke at velegnet til landbrug, kunne man overlade det til dyrelivet, som har brug for vilde arealer.

[redigér] Farming plants harms animals

Some argue that vegetarianism actually doesn't reduce the number of animals killed; while vegetarians may reduce the demand for meat for consumption, animals might be killed in indirect ways. For example, critics like Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argues that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production.^[13] Whenever a tractor goes through a field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, and harvest, animals are killed. Davis gives a small sampling of field animals in the U. S. that are threatened by intensive crop production, such as: opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, grey partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, gray-tailed vole, and numerous species of amphibians. In one small example, an alfalfa harvest caused a 50% decline in the gray-tailed vole population. According to Davis, if all of the cropland in the U. S. were used to produce crops for a vegetarian diet, it is estimated that around 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually.^[14]

Rebuttals

• Most meat consumed by humans is not from pasture animals but from animals fed food from crops, the production of which implies the same kind of indirect harm to animals as the production of crops for direct human consumption. However, much larger crop surfaces are needed for a meat-based diet than for a plant-based one, because of the poor energy conversion ratio from plant food to animal flesh. Indeed, 70% of grain produced in the U.S. is fed to cattle[5]. Thus the total amount of harm entailed to field animals is much greater for a standard meat-based diet than for a plant-based one.

• The above figure given by Davis of 1.8 billion animals that would be killed annually in the field in the U.S. if everyone went vegetarian is actually much smaller than the number of animals currently slaughtered in the U.S. (approximately 10 billion "poultry" animals),^[15] not to mention the animals who are killed in the field if crops are used to feed the animals raised.

• It may be true that a few forms of meat consumption -- perhaps, eating the meat from animals raised on pastures -- kills fewer animals than some, or even most, forms of plant production. Such meat production might then be ethically preferable. However, eating meat may also have a symbolic value, as a statement that the life of the animal eaten is of little worth. Only in a society where the interests of other sentient beings are given due consideration can methods be devised to minimize the harm done to animals in the production of crops. To work towards such a society, it is necessary to forgo the consumption of the flesh of animals.Skabelon:Fact

• The animal populations and death caused in Davis's studies are artificially high due to the industrialisation of agriculture on one hand and harvesting methods on the other. The issue is one of intent. Vegetarianism does not intend to kill animals, and it is entirely within conception to evolve or revert to a more sustainable or cruelty limited system. Davis's critique is actually a critique of the practises of industrial agriculture feeding the meat industry and has little to do with vegetarianism.

• Pollution resulting from animal farming also poses a risk to wildlife, especially through the contamination of rivers and lakes from untreated manure[6]. Livestock production is also an important source of greenhouse gasses; in particular, it has been estimated to be responsible for 20% of global methane production[7].

[redigér] Farming animals keeps them alive

Some critics of vegetarianism believe that human society has a responsibility to maintain the animal species that have become dependent on human husbandry for survival. They suggest that hundreds of years of selective breeding in domestic animal species has made them dependent on human farming. An expansion of this argument is that if a society had a sudden and drastic conversion to vegetarianism, there would be no economically viable reason for keeping certain livestocks--meaning the only viable way to free land for arable farming would be the mass culling of animals.^[16] While critics argue that some level of animal husbandry would be maintained for other animal products like wool, milk, eggs etc., supporters of this argument point out that selective breeding has created breeds of animals which have been bred specifically for their meat.

Rebuttals

• It can be argued that humans do not have a responsibility to maintain any specific breeds and that they will increase naturally as people turn towards vegetarianism . Land can be freed, if necessary, by other means.

• Species of animals are constantly being driven to extinction by human actions--including the land use practices that eating meat leads to. The same tactics that are used to protect other endangered species could be used to protect domestic animal species, and a vegetarian diet might result in the extinction of fewer species in the long run.

• According to some ideologies, it is unethical to create a life for the purpose of killing it. Once a life is created, it should be cared for by its creator and thus, with the equation of animal-breeding to an act of creation, ethical treatment of animals that were already created for human consumption is required.

[redigér] As humans, we should protect only human interests

Some critics of vegetarianism believe that any suffering experienced by non-human animals should not be of concern because human interests must take priority. This view makes any animal rights-based argument against eating meat inconsequential, leaving only arguments based on the benefits to humans of vegetarianism. Holders of this view vary in their opinion as to whether the production of meat is more favorable than other uses of the required resources, but they agree that consumption of already available meat is perfectly ethical.Skabelon:Fact

[redigér] Arguments for why eating meat is unethical

[redigér] Cause least harm

Philosopher Peter Singer believes that if alternative means of survival exist, one ought to choose the option that does not cause unnecessary harm to animals. Singer believes that everyone (with the exception of a small minority of people such as nomadic, hunting and herding societies) is free to choose not to eat meat or use animal products without sacrificing their health.^[17]

Rebuttals

• Not eating any meat can be harmful if adequate alternatives are unavailable, see Necessity.

• It can be argued that a diet without meat does not reduce harm to animals, see Farming plants harms animals.
• Many people disagree that humans have an obligation to avoid eating animals even if alternative means of survival persist, on the grounds that animals are not moral agents and cannot claim rights (nor can they be charged with crimes).
• It is not clear that the interest of an animal to survive trumps the interest of a human being to consume it, anymore than it is clear that the interests of a mosquito to feed and survive on human blood trump the interests of the human being bitten to thwart it.

[redigér] Animals have feelings and can suffer

John Webster, a professor of animal husbandry at Bristol University has been quoted as saying "People have assumed that intelligence is linked to the ability to suffer and that because animals have smaller brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic, sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated to seek it, you only have to watch how cows, pigs and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's day. Just like humans."^[18]

In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer developed a list of qualities in sentient creatures that he believes gives them consideration under utilitarian ethics. This list has been widely referenced by animal rights campaigners and vegetarians. Singer provides a number of reasons to bestow moral consideration on an animal, such as that the animal does not want to die and is given no choice, that the family and friends of that animal may suffer because of its death, that the animal has expectations of future enjoyment which are denied, that the animal enjoys living, and that the animal experiences fear and pain when killed. Some would say that killing an animal could only be justified in extreme circumstances and that the creation of a meal for its taste, convenience or nutritional value is not sufficient cause.

Rebuttals

• This is not an argument against eating meat, rather against making animals suffer, which meat eaters do not necessarily agree with.

• Arguments of this sort may be motivated by simple anthropomorphism, or the grafting of human feelings and desires onto animals. Skabelon:Fact

• The simple act of living brings human beings into conflict with literally thousands of animals, including parasites, worms, mosquitoes, pests, rats, and the like, all of which have interests that often directly conflict with the interests and survival of humans. In this respect Singer's reasoning that killing an animal is unethical because "it does not want to die" applies equally to mosquitoes and tapeworms, and on utilitarian grounds, it is not very clear where to draw the line between the interest of a thousand tapeworms vs. that of one human being trying to survive.

• Experiments conducted by Jagadish Chandra Bose studied the electrochemical reactions of plants to various external stimuli. The results can be interpretted as showing that plants feel affection, pleasure and pain; in which case pleasure-pain arguments would imply a plant based diet is also largely unethical, which would render human survival difficult. Life style based on this philosophy is, however, not unheard of, case in point being the Jain religion, which existed long before Bose's experiments.

[redigér] Animals are not treated well

Vegetarianism for ethical reasons has become popular in developed countries particularly because of the spread of factory farming. Factory farms are widely believed to have reduced quality of life for animals compared to their quality of life on traditional farms. Some people question whether the current demand for meat can be satisfied without a mass-production system that disregards the welfare of animals. Others believe that practices like well-managed free-ranging and consumption of game could substantially alleviate the demand for mass-produced meat.

Rebuttals

• Because meat can be produced without factory farms, avoiding eating any meat is the logical fallacy of guilty by association.

• This is not an argument against eating meat, rather against making animals suffer.

[redigér] Sanctity of life

Regardless of whether animals are treated well or badly, meat eating involves taking away life, even if by painless means. The Sanctity of Life (SL) principle ("Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben") posits that the inherent sacrosanctity of life is unchallengable and has to be accepted as a first principle. Albert Schweitzer was a major exponent of the SL principle. Ethics, according to Schweitzer, consists in "the compulsion to show toward the will-to-live of each and every being the same reverence as one does to one's own."

Schweitzer's reasoning was as follows: (a) I have a will to live (Will to Live Thesis), (b) When I am healthy and sincere towards myself, I feel reverence for my will to life (Self Affirmation Thesis), (c) All other organisms have a similar will to live (Analogy Thesis), (d) I experience empathy with other life as I reflect honestly, dwelling on its similarity to my own life (Empathy Thesis), (e) My empathy generates sympathy, caring, and a "compulsion" to approach other life with the same reverence I feel for my life (Life Affirmation Thesis), and (f) Hence, reverence for life is a fundamental virtue that consists in "preserving life, promoting and developing all life that is capable of development to its highest possible value" and in not "destroying life, injuring life, repressing life that is capable of development."

Rebuttals

• This approach implies that our belief in SL is an outcome of our own self-centered fear of death, and not an ethical precept.
• Empathy has an emotional appeal, but desires and feelings may be misguided. Just because they are natural does not mean they are justified.
• This principle could be applied to all life, and not just sentient life.

[redigér] Damage to the environment

Skabelon:Main

A combination of the Conservation ethic and the supposed environmental benefits of vegetarianism, this argument claims that consuming meat is less ethical than vegetarianism because it is more damaging to the environment. Proponents argue that meat-eating is immoral from an environmental ethics point of view. Based on Kurt Baier's work (The Moral Point of View, 1994) they argue that if the behaviour in question is such that (a) the consequences would be undesirable if everyone did it, (b) all are equally entitled to engage in it, and (c) engaging in this sort of behaviour is an indulgence, not a sacrifice, then such a behaviour should be prohibited by the morality of the group. They cite that human density on Earth is now one person to about 2 hectares of land, and when domestic animals are added, the density is one population equivalent (Borgstrom, 1965) to about 0.3 hectare.

It is well known that the transfer of energy and nutrients across trophic levels in an ecosystem is inefficient. In fact only about 10% of the nutritive value is transferred. This means that producing a unit of biomass in any particular level in the ecological pyramid will require ten times the investement in energy and nutrients than the one immediately below it. Put another way, one kilogram of food derived from animal sources will require ten times the resource investement (land, water and energy) that one kilogram of plant-derived food requires. This is balanced somewhat by the fact that meat contains a higher nutritional content than vegetable matter.^[19]

If meat consumption doubles in the next forty years, then there will be only half an acre to supply all the needs (water, oxygen, minerals, fibers, living space, as well as food) for each 50-kilogram consumer, not including pets and wildlife, which would be a catastrophic consequence. They further add that 87 percent of US agricultural land is used to raise animals for food, which feed on more than 80 percent of the corn and 95 percent of oats the US produces. Meat animals of the world alone consume food equal to calorific needs of 9 billion people. The additional strain on natural resources is also cited. They also point out that the spread of cattle farming is closely related to deforestation.Skabelon:Fact

A study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, found that consumption of meat may be as detrimental to the environment as it is to human health.^[20] Relatedly, the production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, and species extinction.

Rebuttals

• The above figures are largely for a western-style diet and cultivation. In fact, in many Asian countries where rice is the staple diet, it takes 5,000 litres of water to produce a kg of rice, whereas one kg of broiler chicken requires only 3,500 litres.^[21] Freeranging cattle and goats/sheep in developing countries require even lesser water requirements since little or no crop is solely cultivated directly as livestock fodder and many goats have water requirements next only to camels making them very significant to the economy of small-scale farmers.^[22]

• Much of the land used to raise animals is unsuitable for food crops but is suitable for grazing.
• Meat obtained from wild sources, such as through hunting and fishing, does not add any burden to the local environment so long as its harvest is regulated to maintain healthy population levels. In so much as these practices replace a portion of the diet that would otherwise be produced through commercial means, they actually reduce the ecological footprint of an individual.
• This is an argument concerning the environmental effects of livestock farming, and therefore can be countered with the rebuttals outlined under the preceding section.

[redigér] Religious opposition

Skabelon:Section stub

People's spiritual belief system or religious doctrine lead a person to the position that eating meat is immoral. Some religions offer reasons why eating meat should not be practised. In the Dharmic religions, Karmas play an important role. Jainism is one religion that supports a vegetarian diet and opposes meat eating. Some Hindu sects, eg. vaishnav, do the same.

"You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human or animal."(Yajur Veda, 12.32)

"By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation." (Manusmriti, 6.60)

"Eight people are considered killers: Advisers in matter of meat, the Cutter, the Killer, the Seller, the Buyer, the Cook, the Server and the Eater." (Manusmriti, 5.51)

"The purchaser of flesh performs himsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts of the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it-all of these are to be considered meat-eaters." (Mahabharata, Anu. 115:40)

Sikhism is one religion that is divided over the issue of meat eating with some section firmly supportive of vegetarian, and others hold that vegetarianism is desirable but not mandatory. Both camps do agree that only a "Fool Wrangles Over Flesh".

According to some people Christianity and Judaism are opposed to eating meat. They use a number of passages from the Old and New Testament to support them. This is described more precisely in the article Christian vegetarianism.

Most Muslims believe that their duty is kindness to animals (because of passages from the Quran and Hadith). Many vegetarian Muslims use these passages to advocate abstinence from meat.

Rebuttals

• A belief system can also find eating meat to be moral, or even mandatory. A verse in the Jewish Tanakh (Christian Old Testament) states "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs."^[23] Similarly, the Christian New Testament says "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."^[24].

[redigér] Personal Issue (Ethical) or Public Issue (Legal)

An ethical issue may or may not be seen as having potential legal consequences. Not all unethical behaviour is illegal. Currently, the choice whether or not to eat animals, or certain animals, is a personal issue which is left to the free choice of each individual.

The Animal liberation movement, however, aims at instituting laws banning the production of certain entrées (i.e. foie gras Skabelon:Fact) or granting personhood to animals which would forbid their consumption altogether.

[redigér] References

[redigér] See also

• Speciesism
• Antispecism
• Animal rights
• Meat
• Food guide pyramid
• Economic vegetarianism
• Environmental vegetarianism
• Veganism
• Vegetarianism
• Vegetarianism and religion
• Vegetarian nutrition

[redigér] External links

• The moral basis of vegetarianism (1959) e-book by Mahatma Gandhi

Hvis du læser ovenstående, og er kødæder, kunne du m

Reasons for objecting to the practice of killing may include a belief in animal rights, environmental ethics, or an aversion to inflicting pain or harm on other living creatures due to conscience. A large number of people, while not vegetarians, refuse to eat the flesh of certain animals, such as cats, dogs, humans, horses, rabbits, or warm-blooded animals generally. Some people eat only the flesh of animals who have not been mistreated, and abstain from the meat of animals reared in factory farms or from particular products such as foie gras and veal. Others believe that the treatment which animals undergo in the production of meat and animal products obliges them never to eat meat or use animal products.