Killing Animals and Spirituality?

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, Hypsibius said:

Well, at least in the Buddhist system of thought, what I imprecisely referred to as "morally negative" is intended as actions, words and/or thoughts that cause harm to sentient beings (including to the agent himself/herself) or in other words anything that is motivated by "avidyā" (ignorance, i.e. the lack of clear understanding of the true nature of things).

 

Perhaps Prometheus can intercede on the Buddhist system of thought in regards to Karma. My personal understanding of Karma is far less spiritual. For me, it works in two ways: 

1. If one does something one knows to be wrong, one suffers because there's no more formidable judge than oneself, whereas if one does something one knows to be good, one gets a warm fuzzy feeling and a hit of dopamine.

2. If one understands the above one can relax, forgive and enjoy a beer; no need for revenge or a promise that points mean prizes when one's dead.

Edited March 22, 2018 by dimreepr

[YaDinghus]

I, personally, find spirituality overrated. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't define it by the food I eat. I mostly find spirituality overrated because self-proclaimed spiritualists are cruel to the humans they aim to convert to their philosphy. 

[Prometheus]

On 22/03/2018 at 3:39 PM, dimreepr said:

Perhaps Prometheus can intercede on the Buddhist system of thought in regards to Karma.

Very much depends on the school of Buddhism, some having very detailed cosmologies describing it, others barely mention it. I believe Tibetan Buddhism is one of the former.  Literally translated karma just means action or work. Motivation/intention is important in Buddhist karma, killing for food and killing for fun would be different.

Related aside: most Buddhism does not require vegetarianism and the Buddha is reported to have died of pork poisoning.

[Akmose]

The truth is that if you want to live you have to kill. Hell if you want to die you still have to kill yourself. Animals are a form of life but so is a plant. You place a morality to killing and eating one but not the other. Killing a plant is morally the same. 

I feel that most vegans get a sense of superiority over people who eat animals. All life is life. 

Ill bet that plants are screaming the whole time they are being eaten.

Most people who eat meat have a lot of respect for the life that keeps them alive. 

Just a thought.

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Akmose said:

The truth is that if you want to live you have to kill. Hell if you want to die you still have to kill yourself. Animals are a form of life but so is a plant. You place a morality to killing and eating one but not the other. Killing a plant is morally the same. 

I feel that most vegans get a sense of superiority over people who eat animals. All life is life. Ill bet that plants are screaming the whole time they are being eaten.

 

1

You seem confused, not all plants die when cropped.

6 hours ago, Akmose said:

Most people who eat meat have a lot of respect for the life that keeps them alive. 

do they?

[Akmose]

You seem confused, not all plants die when cropped.

I think you missed the point read it again. 

do they?

Yes. 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Akmose said:

You seem confused, not all plants die when cropped.

I think you missed the point read it again. 

do they?

Yes. 

You need to (a) learn to use the quote function and (b) be less cryptic.

Not all plants are killed when they are used for food. It is not clear what point has been missed.

And do you have any evidence that "most people who eat meat have a lot of respect for the life that keeps them alive"

[Akmose]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

You need to (a) learn to use the quote function and (b) be less cryptic.

Not all plants are killed when they are used for food. It is not clear what point has been missed.

And do you have any evidence that "most people who eat meat have a lot of respect for the life that keeps them alive"

Point a - fair enough I do need the learn to us the quote function. 

Point b - so if part of host can grow back after being cut off, its morally better than killing the host. If I did that to an animal I would be a monster.

At a certain point a quick clean kill is morally superior. 

The last point. Taking most of human history into account, people have created religions to pay respect to the animals that have provided life to them. Even making the spirits of animals as gods. 

Do the vegans respect plants that much? 

Where's your evidence that meat eater don't?

 

[StringJunky]

34 minutes ago, Akmose said:

Point a - fair enough I do need the learn to us the quote function. 

Point b - so if part of host can grow back after being cut off, its morally better than killing the host. If I did that to an animal I would be a monster.

At a certain point a quick clean kill is morally superior. 

The last point. Taking most of human history into account, people have created religions to pay respect to the animals that have provided life to them. Even making the spirits of animals as gods. 

Do the vegans respect plants that much? 

Where's your evidence that meat eater don't?

 

You can quote by highlighting some text in a post by click-dragging, upon which you will see a 'quote this' flag; click that. Or, click the 'Quote' button, bottom left of every post if you wish to use the whole post.

Edited March 3, 2019 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Point b - so if part of host can grow back after being cut off, its morally better than killing the host. If I did that to an animal I would be a monster.

2

Im kind to the ducks I keep for eggs.

11 hours ago, Akmose said:

Do the vegans respect plants that much?

the plants don't care.

[peterwlocke]

we are animals we are omnivores we eat meat. it is human nature. we are evolved like bears to eat both just because we are sentient doesn't mean we are not supposed to eat what we were meant to.

[peterwlocke]

On 3/3/2019 at 11:01 PM, dimreepr said:

 

the plants don't care.

 

the animals don't care as long as you make it quick and painless.

[NoIdentificationProvided]

I am a child of science. I am a child who believed it when Einstein said that science was simply uncovering the mysteries of God's work. Therefore I am a man who has at least, an ounce of spirituality. And using the very book given to guide those who follow this path, which says we are allowed to kill these creatures, I am left with mild confusion as to why this was asked.

 

Looking from an amoral perspective, these are nothing more than sustenance which forms an important part of our diet. We also contribute to the circle of life, as if we don't eat them....what will?.

There are far more of them than they are predators in wild. Overgrazing would be the least of our problems. Ecosystems would be disrupted, these domesticated pieces of meat would be starved as they now lack essential survival instincts. It's regression at best. The people of the stone age reared these animals for a reason.

 

Looking spiritually, we suffer no recourse for eating them, no? So don't mention that aspect without bringing actual proof to the table.

Just so you know I have a pet dog with me. But, God forgive, if left with no other choice, she will serve as sustenance without causing long-lasting damage to my conscience.

Because that is their primary purpose no matter how you look at it.

 

They are food.

[zapatos]

On 10/9/2019 at 6:36 PM, NoIdentificationProvided said:

Because that is their primary purpose no matter how you look at it.

 

They are food.

If the primary purpose of animals is to provide food for others, please recognize that this applies to you serving as food for others also.

[mistermack]

This is a crazy thread. There are no spirits, so there is no spirituality. It's a widely held delusion. 

And there is no purpose, to animals or humans, except the subjective ones that we conjure up. 

It only "feels" right or wrong because of the type of brain that we've inherited through genetics, and that applies both individually and collectively. 

If you killed a baby today, and ate it, we would all agree that it was horribly wrong. But agreeing doesn't make it real. In a thousand years time, it won't matter in the slightest to anyone. 

So the answer to the question, "can you eat meat and be spiritual" is definitely no. Just like the answer to the question "can you be vegan and be spiritual"

[Strange]

Just now, mistermack said:

There are no spirits, so there is no spirituality.

I think you need to check the meaning of the word. Spirituality does not require the existence of spirits.

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think you need to check the meaning of the word. Spirituality does not require the existence of spirits.

It's up to each individual what the word means.

There is no single, widely agreed upon definition of spirituality. I'm arguing that spirituality should involve an element of, spirit, somewhere.

I define it as anything about us that is claimed to be more than just flesh and blood. 

If you want to include emotions that we all feel, through the workings of our brains as spiritual, then go ahead. I would class that as emotions formed by electical circuits in our brains. Calling it spiritual is stretching it too far. For me.

I'm aware that lots of people disagree. They're entitled to disagree. I'm just arguing that they're wrong. 😁

[Prometheus]

31 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But agreeing doesn't make it real.

And there is no purpose, to animals or humans, except the subjective ones that we conjure up.

Being a human construct does not make things somehow less real. Things like justice and mercy exist: they are not flesh and blood although they are emergent from it. Why is 'subjective' purpose often thought inferior to 'objective' purpose? Like being given meaning is somehow better than creating meaning.

 

38 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It only "feels" right or wrong because of the type of brain that we've inherited through genetics, and that applies both individually and collectively. 

Memetics probably plays a larger role now than genetics. 

 

42 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you killed a baby today, and ate it, we would all agree that it was horribly wrong. But agreeing doesn't make it real. In a thousand years time, it won't matter in the slightest to anyone. 

Why does being a temporary phenomena make it less real? Even atoms have finite lifetimes - so they aren't real either. What are you talking about?

 

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's up to each individual what the word means.

Just because you have a favourite definition of the word spirituality, doesn't make it the 'right' one. I agree it can lead to confusion so it's worth stating which one your following, but to discarding all other meanings as wrong is just plain silly. Like one word can't have more than one meaning. It's like not believing in atoms, because the root Greek word means indivisible and atoms can be split. Doesn't work, does it?

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's up to each individual what the word means.

LOL, so it's up to me if the word banana means a type of food or a type of bridge?

23 minutes ago, mistermack said:

There is no single, widely agreed upon definition of spirituality. I'm arguing that spirituality should involve an element of, spirit, somewhere.

Single malt whiskey?

25 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I define it as anything about us that is claimed to be more than just flesh and blood. 

If you want to include emotions that we all feel, through the workings of our brains as spiritual, then go ahead. I would class that as emotions formed by electical circuits in our brains. Calling it spiritual is stretching it too far. For me.

Have you never just stared in wonder at that blinking star flitting across our skies? Or at a video from that blinking star?

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm aware that lots of people disagree. They're entitled to disagree. I'm just arguing that they're wrong. 😁

That's really rather arrogant.

[mistermack]

Arguments about words are generally pretty hazy, but in this case I'm arguing that 

Criminality should involve something criminal

Bestiality should involve animals 

Sexuality should involve sex somewhere along the line 

Individuality should be pertinent to the individual in some way 

And spirituality should involve a notion of a spirit.

But I suppose, if you are of the opinion that reality doesn't need to involve what's real, then none of the above need apply.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And spirituality should involve a notion of a spirit.

It does. But it doesn't require that the spirits exist. Spirituality is a description of a human characteristic. 

Religion (and, more relevantly, religiosity) does not require the existence of gods.

Harry Potter does not require that magic actually exists.

Science fiction does not rely on humans actually travelling to distant stars.

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Arguments about words are generally pretty hazy

One could always refer to a dictionary.

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

It does. But it doesn't require that the spirits exist. Spirituality is a description of a human characteristic. 

Well, we're in agreement then. 

That's what I pointed out when I said widely held delusion. It's a human characteristic, not something mysteriously "greater". 

To argue the topic of the thread title, it's an appeal to a greater meaning than just biology. So I'm replying in the negative to the OP in my post.

 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's what I pointed out when I said widely held delusion. It's a human characteristic, not something mysteriously "greater".

That's the second word you've misunderstood, for instance I'm not deluded (sorry, third) when I: 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

stared in wonder at that blinking star flitting across our skies? Or at a video from that blinking star?

 

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by dimreepr

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's the second word you've misunderstood,

 

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

One could always refer to a dictionary.

I did refer to wiki, and it says word for word : " There is no single, widely agreed upon definition of spirituality. " as I pasted into my post. So take it up with the author. 

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Well, we're in agreement then. 

That's what I pointed out when I said widely held delusion. It's a human characteristic, not something mysteriously "greater". 

We are not in agreement because you said "there is no spirituality" which is obviously false.

Just now, mistermack said:

I did refer to wiki, and it says word for word : " There is no single, widely agreed upon definition of spirituality. " as I pasted into my post. So take it up with the author. 

As I say, one could refer to a dictionary.