Imagine this
situation:
Child: "Mum,
can you tell me where the steak comes from?"
Mother: "Oh..Euh...Steak is meat from animals. However it's okay because they don't live anymore. "
Child: " What?! But mum, this is not okay! You told me I should treat everyone, including animals, well! So, how can I eat an animals?!"
Well, what is right and what is wrong now? Why is it sometimes so difficult to decide what is right and what wrong?
Society gives us universal moral ideals, which shows us the right way in most cases: While violence, lying, foul play and racism are bad, good behavior and telling the truth are good. If someone trespasses against the moral ideals, the society would convict him of that. That is because of the universal moral ideals, which let us judge about wrong and right, automatically.
Though, it's not easy to define universal moral ideals and rights and wrongs. One intensely discussed topic is the dispatch of animals for eating them:
Who decides that it's okay to kill animals, so that we can eat them? Indeed, society gives us moral ideals but why isn't the society able to give us a clear answer to the question, if it's okay to eat animals?
That has to do with the fact that people have a different view of everything. Every single person is different and inimitable. Well, the society is cleaved on this topic. Everyone decide for themselves, if it's okay to eat animals and especially with what intention one eat them.
Actually, is it more justifiable to kill and eat animals because of hunger and don't have anything else to eat, than killing and eating animals because of consumption while having different things to eat in abundance?
"Not the food which entereth into the mouth defileth a man, but the appetite with which it is eaten. It is neither the quality nor the quantity, but the devotion to sensual savors..." ( Thoreau 141).
As mentioned above, every single person is different and can also strive against the stream. So there are different opinions to this topic. There is no rule that forbids to kill and eat animals, anyway everyone can have his own moral ideal which forbids him to eat them.
That has to do with the fact that we instinctively know, what is wrong and what is right.
Also Thoreau had an instinct:
"Like many of my contemporaries, I had rarely for many years used animal food, or tea, or coffee, &c,; not so much because of any ill effects which I had traced to them, as because they were not agreeable to my imagination. The repugnance to animal food is not the effect of experience, but is an instinct...I believe that every man who has ever been earnest to preserve his higher or poetic faculties in the best conditions has been particularly inclined to abstain from animal food, and from much food of any kind." ( Thoreau 139)
Though people don't want to see the truth, because it can be painful or they have to assume personal responsibility and stop eating meat.
Many a time children have such an instinct but they were influenced by the education of their parents teachers and the media.
Also the emotion play an important part. If someone doesn't like to eat meat, it's because of his emotions are active in his thinking process. He can't square it with his conscience.
All in all it's not easy to define moral ideals, because every single person is guided by his emotions and answers for himself, what's wrong and what right. In addition the time plays an important part too, because moral ideals changes in time. Maybe there is a rule in the future, which forbids us to eat animals?
Nevertheless every person can decides for himself which decision he makes, but he himself has to live with the consequence.
Mother: "Oh..Euh...Steak is meat from animals. However it's okay because they don't live anymore. "
Child: " What?! But mum, this is not okay! You told me I should treat everyone, including animals, well! So, how can I eat an animals?!"
Well, what is right and what is wrong now? Why is it sometimes so difficult to decide what is right and what wrong?
Society gives us universal moral ideals, which shows us the right way in most cases: While violence, lying, foul play and racism are bad, good behavior and telling the truth are good. If someone trespasses against the moral ideals, the society would convict him of that. That is because of the universal moral ideals, which let us judge about wrong and right, automatically.
Though, it's not easy to define universal moral ideals and rights and wrongs. One intensely discussed topic is the dispatch of animals for eating them:
Who decides that it's okay to kill animals, so that we can eat them? Indeed, society gives us moral ideals but why isn't the society able to give us a clear answer to the question, if it's okay to eat animals?
That has to do with the fact that people have a different view of everything. Every single person is different and inimitable. Well, the society is cleaved on this topic. Everyone decide for themselves, if it's okay to eat animals and especially with what intention one eat them.
Actually, is it more justifiable to kill and eat animals because of hunger and don't have anything else to eat, than killing and eating animals because of consumption while having different things to eat in abundance?
"Not the food which entereth into the mouth defileth a man, but the appetite with which it is eaten. It is neither the quality nor the quantity, but the devotion to sensual savors..." ( Thoreau 141).
As mentioned above, every single person is different and can also strive against the stream. So there are different opinions to this topic. There is no rule that forbids to kill and eat animals, anyway everyone can have his own moral ideal which forbids him to eat them.
That has to do with the fact that we instinctively know, what is wrong and what is right.
Also Thoreau had an instinct:
"Like many of my contemporaries, I had rarely for many years used animal food, or tea, or coffee, &c,; not so much because of any ill effects which I had traced to them, as because they were not agreeable to my imagination. The repugnance to animal food is not the effect of experience, but is an instinct...I believe that every man who has ever been earnest to preserve his higher or poetic faculties in the best conditions has been particularly inclined to abstain from animal food, and from much food of any kind." ( Thoreau 139)
Though people don't want to see the truth, because it can be painful or they have to assume personal responsibility and stop eating meat.
Many a time children have such an instinct but they were influenced by the education of their parents teachers and the media.
Also the emotion play an important part. If someone doesn't like to eat meat, it's because of his emotions are active in his thinking process. He can't square it with his conscience.
All in all it's not easy to define moral ideals, because every single person is guided by his emotions and answers for himself, what's wrong and what right. In addition the time plays an important part too, because moral ideals changes in time. Maybe there is a rule in the future, which forbids us to eat animals?
Nevertheless every person can decides for himself which decision he makes, but he himself has to live with the consequence.
No comments:
Post a Comment