“We can make the statement that all humans exist of an equal plane of humanity, and may not be treated as a sub-human. However, with other species, there can be no such sweeping characterization.”
Why not? This whole Pascal-type argument rests on the premise that the moral status of animals is a grey area. But for many of us, the argument for ascribing rights or equal consideration is just as strong in the case of dogs and pigs as it is in the case of human children or the mentally handicapped. Of course, no humans should be treated as sub-human. Good thinking. But then, no dogs should be treated as sub-canine, right? A more relevant point is that many dogs and pigs are smarter and more emotionally sophisticated than some humans.

“Can I just say that the human anatomy functions in such a way as to imply that meat eating is a fundamental part of our ability to live.”
You can say it, but it’s a dumb thing to say. Our closest non-human relatives are either entirely or mostly vegetarian. The main thing, however, is that humans can survive with or without meat in their diet (though most people would probably be healthier with little or no meat), so we have a CHOICE to make, and this makes the issue a moral one.

But then, I guess that’s not a very philosophical answer.

You aiming a gun and firing at me isn’t a bad act because it might kill me. It’s a bad act because you’re trying to kill me. The purpose of your act would be to kill me. Probability shouldn’t a play a role there.

One of the problems with Hine’s argument is that there’s no mechanism for determining what the probability is. True, it might be “very” immoral but how are we to understand the nature of “might be”?

In general, I think its bound to be a matter of degree: Is there an alternative act available with less chance of being immoral? How great is the chance of this act being immoral? And, I think, Hine’s argument is intended to show that there’s some chance of carnivorism (?) being /very/ immoral, and some chance of it being just /mildly/ pleasurable. I think its plausible to suggest that this act has a great enough chance of being bad to render it immoral.

The great Library at Daylight Atheism has been outfitted for an auspicious occasion. Merry bunting drapes the tall shelves of books, balloons congregate near the ceiling, and waiters quietly circulate bearing trays of drinks. Already the symposium is i…

It would be immoral to allow a human to starve because we are unwilling to kill an animal. Conversely, killing an animal for fun or sport may not be immoral, but I certainly would be cautious about that persons’ compassion (or being Vice President).

As for the ability to kill animals without pain, I think that this certainly may be true theoretically, but it is very far from how the beef industry operates today.

Overall, I’m just saying what I am comfortable with. I’ve got a soft spot for living things and I hate seeing them in pain. If I can enjoy what I eat without killing, it seems much better to me.

As recently as 30 years ago, it was far more difficult to eat an healthy, filling diet without meat. I certainly think that the human need for nutrition outweights the feelings of animals. But, if someone can fill their food needs without harming animals, that is a better choice.

Perhaps one could respond in the following way: of course, anything might be immoral, and you are absolutely correct to denounce this as a reason for refraining from action. It must be admitted as a possibility that it is immoral to wear orange on Tuesdays, but that just isn’t a good enough reason for me to refrain from the practice. What is needed is some evidence that it is not completely ridiculous to think that wearing orange on Tuesdays is wrong.

Of course, in the example I’ve used it is completely ridiculous, but in other cases it is not. Consider some putative moral issues: is it wrong to keep slaves? Yes! Do we have an obligation to protect the rights of women and ethinic minorities? Yes! Is it permissible to voice your political or religious opinion insofar as it does not harm others? Yes! Is it permissible to maturbate? Yes! Is it immoral to wear orange on Tuesdays? Of course not! Is abortion permissible? Hmm…

The last question is of the interesting moral variety. You might consider this the “gray area” where live moral issues are fostered and ruminated over. There is no doubt that some moral issues are, for all intents and purposes, settled. There are also amoral issues, like the question of what color clothing you should wear. But the gray area of morality is where argumentation only gets us so far, because intuition and evidence do not combine in such a way as to clearly settle the question on one side of the debate or the other.

This is where the Pascal-style wager argument comes into play. Set up a decision matrix, using whatever methods are appropriate for this task, and then act conservatively. Take the course of action that brings with it the least risk of acting immorally. This seems like a pretty rational thing to advise for such situations.

If you accept this response, then the only concern that remains for any particular question is: does it fall into a black or white moral category? is it an amoral subject? or does it fall into the moral gray area? Since the question of the treatment of non-human animals seems to definitely fall into that gray area, it is well advised that we should not eat meat. That is the conservative thing to do - the thing that puts us in the least risky position with respect to acting immorally.