Question for The Vegans/Veggies

I covered this in either this thread or another thread, technically in acres the country of australia is big enough to supply each household unit with one ace of land each.

Yes the entire population in the world could live in australia and have just over an acre for each family, that would leave the entire rest of the world for farming and animal habitat.

The problem is not lack of space for providing food, this arguement the anti meat brigade use is BS.

The problem is corruption, people are starving because very nasty people in power benefit from the world being in such an awful state, it has nothing to do with the production side of things, there is enough land to provide food for the entire population.

Bullshit.

Example, you must kill one chicken or i will kill two.


But i know what you are going to say before you say it, you are going to say you wouldnt kill either, or you would let me kill the two, because then you are not responsible.

Typically avoiding the philsophical issue, morality is subjective and variable.

I have no problems with being cruel or horrible if circumstances dictate i have to be, anybody who thinks otherwise is going to last all of about 5 minutes in a SHTF scenario.

Yes, because i am contained within the confines of this shell, my survival is paramount and the most important thing.

Where was that moral yo-yoing when they layed that fibre optic cable for your internet under the sea destorying animal habbit.

Or when they launched that satelite poluting and destroying the environment.

Do you own a car? Tractor? Do you use electricity from a powerstation? Natural Gas?

Word, i abstain from eating beef, pork and lamb myself because i have seen industrialized farming in action.

I eat free range poultry and fish though.

However i know enough about philsophy to kow that once you claim to be of higher moral fibre than your peers, it can all start to fall apart with moral paradoxes pretty quickly, it is almost imposible to live a moral and ethnical life, the act of existing means we are detrimental to the exsistance of other animals.

There is also the slight problem that much of the land in the world is unsuitable for growing crops, either because it is desert or one sort or another, or at too high an elevation, or contaminated with salt or already over-used to the point of destruction. Large areas of land also have to be allowed to stay uncultivated to allow for natural run-off etc or there will be problems with flash flooding as has been seen recently in the UK.

I don't doubt however that at present corruption also plays its part in starvation.



Well obviously I don't need to argue this point because you already know how very subjective and limited this argument is, and that absolutely anything can be supported by it, including killing your a man on the street because he has money and you do not. This is not an argument that is able to support a civilised society and it is the reason we have laws, because the logical and very rapid outcome of that argument is anarchy.



None of this has anything to do with the present discussion - I will happily debate any of it with you in another thread but for now please try to stick to the relevant subject or you will only stand accused of 'straw man' arguments.



I believe that you are confusing moral superiority with superiority as a human being. I can believe that my morals regarding the eating of meat are better than yours without believing that I am a better person than you are. Not all morals are equal in value and moral relativism is a dangerous path to walk. I don't imagine for an instant that you hold all morals to be equal in value do you? But I assume that you would hold all humans to be equal in value irrespective of their moral or ethical convictions? If I choose to be a vegetarian of course I hold that moral stance to be the superior moral stance, else I would not hold that conviction. No-one says "the correct moral stance is to be honest but I will choose to be dishonest instead", rather they convince themselves that in this instance the correct moral stance is to be dishonest (or they don't consider the question at all of course). I doubt that you consider your own moral postions to be inferior to those of others do you?