Even thought animals kill and eat each other, humans have a choice: they need not eat meat to survive.
Humans is different from nonhuman animals because humans are capable of conceiving of a system of morals. Also humans act in accordance with a system of morals.
It is true that human beings do not necessarily need to consume other animals' meat to survive however, the question is why is it wrong to do so?
回覆刪除It is the natural instinct of animals to kill and eat each other for survival. But, humans have reason, culture and religion. The issue that they can eat meat or not is closely related to their culture, religion, health condition and eating style.
回覆刪除What I learnt from HKCEE Biology are as follows: Among all living organisms on Earth, only green plants can manufacture their own food through photosynthesis (this idea is probably wrong by now: As at today scientists found there are biological communities developed deep under the sea where no sunlight can even reach). All animals (herbivores, carnivores or omnivores) have to consume (i.e. eat) other living organisms, plants or animals, for food. It is heard that merely consuming vegetables cannot provide all kinds of the proteins necessary for a normal human diet. This sounds a little bit doubtful for, as I can notice, many monks do live long without apparent health problems. Maybe even if humans do need consuming meat for sustaining good health, any deficiency syndrome due to inadequate meat consumption might only emerge beyond a normal human life span. (I confess this is only my personal speculation.)
回覆刪除(Further to my previous message)"deficiency syndrome" should read "deficiency symptom". Sorry for the typo.
回覆刪除Animals eat each other. They do not "kill" each other. They see each other as food, not a victim. When they find each other as food, they feel hungry and they saliva. "Killing(?)" They do not know what men are talking about. They do not need justification for they have no idea what killing is about.
回覆刪除Men see animals as "potential food", or as "potentials (for revenue)", as targets. They kill such targets for many purposes: own food, food reserve, surplus for trading, for fun, for hunting enjoyment, for studies,...
To justify all such varied motives, humans start to invent their own so-called right to kill as pretext. CAN victims argue?? No way. They have died.
Do humans have challengers when humans already dominate the world? Yes, but not until the result of "the self-dug graveyard" (ecological disasters) hit back.
One never knows one has been in nightmare unless one can come out from the nightmare. Can humans remain lucky forever?