Well unless you believe in universal morality, morality is based in part on your nature. For a tiger eating meat has no moral implications because it has neither the option to choose or the ability not to eat meat. Humans are omnivores and therefore eat plants and meat, despite being intelligent enough to choose I would say it is not moral to reject your nature and therefore the choice to eat meat is not a moral one because it is a part of our nature.

How you treat the animals you choose to eat in life and in killing them is moral however.

Bro do squirrels do what every animal does? No, but they’re still animals. You see what I mean? Squirrels have intrinsic parts of their nature some parts overlap with some animals and some parts don’t. Humans have intrinsic parts of their nature some overlap with some animals some don’t. The point is that like other animals we have intrinsic aspects to our nature, one of which is that we are omnivores we should then not use the intelligence of our nature to deny the fact we are omnivores and stop eating meat.

Bro my whole point is that humans fit inside the category of animal. That doesn’t mean we do everything every other animal does. Furthermore as the human animal also fits inside the category of omnivore we cannot choose to stop being omnivores and not eat meat.

Dude again in the particular case of humans, humans eat meat my exact point is that it’s not about looking at animals in general but humans in specific. It doesn’t matter what other animals do it’s about what the human animal does and what it evolved to do and be capable of.

Bro chill my point is that not every animal rapes their young and we are clearly not a species of animal that rapes their young like I said just because one animal does something doesn’t mean all of them do it. I feel like I expressed that clearly earlier though I may not have, I just hope you’re taking the time to seriously consider my difference of opinion here.

Yeah no for sure just cause we eat meat doesn’t mean we should treat the animals we eat terribly while they’re alive and that we shouldn’t balance the benefits of eating meat with the moral, practical, and environment costs. I just don’t feel the idea of completely getting rid of one of our basic food sources makes sense.

Ok but we’re not “animals” we’re humans, a type of animal just because some animals do things doesn’t mean we do. And the reason we should sustainably enter the cycle of life and nature is because we are and have always been a part of it, we cannot escape it, nor would it be of any good of us to escape it and so we should be in it properly and responsibly

I understand but I think that’s more of a technicality.

Ok but your decision is nonsensical it’s like saying that because you’re breathing carbon dioxide and there’s too much carbon dioxide in the air you shouldn’t breath air out in the open but should instead stay inside a bubble that filters out the carbon.

Then tell me what’s not supported.

And finally you can probably make the calculation on the amount of fertilizer a cow will produce over a given period of time and how much that will improve your crop yield versus the nutrition you’d get from simply eating it. And you can further perform the calculation on the carbon cost of transporting the manure versus creating it in a factory

How about one along the lines of I am part of nature and I am an animal, no matter how smart I may be to deny my nature is to deny myself? Plus animals can be treated well and still killed for meat.

Because we are animals and are part of nature and are therefore part of the cycle of life, our goal should be to integrate ourselves sustainably into nature not remove ourselves from it, we should not go against our being omnivores that eat meat and plants, but do so responsibly

But then I can preform a calculation based on the amount of manure they will produce plus the nutritional yields I will get from using it as fertilizer versus the nutrition received by just eating it as meat. Avoided also doesn’t mean gotten rid of, and as long as we need fertilizer it’ll be better for the environment to get it from cows and pigs then a factory, at which point the previous calculation I mentioned would come into effect in deciding when killing the animal for food would be efficient for us and the environment.

Maybe definitionally but if you decide to stop eating meat completely you’ve functionally stopped being an omnivore. Plus the idea that despite having a choice one of those choices is always wrong no matter what just doesn’t sound realistic. Eating meat has advantages either in the fact that certain nutrients are more easily digestibly accessible through meat or the fact that the animals we get meat from also provide fertilizer for our plants and often are fed with waste products from crops that humans cannot eat to begin with.

Ok you’re right, but there are still a number of nutrients that are easier to obtain by eating meat and more easily digestible in meat. In addition the whole concept of not eating meat ignores the fact that today approximately 50% of the worlds fertilizer come from farm animals. This allows you to eat plants without relying on synthetic fertilizers that have a larger carbon footprint then cows.

But the option in being an omnivore is not to stop being an omnivore but in the balance of meat and plants you will eat not in throwing one of those out

The problem is that we are fundamentally animals and animals need to eat. A tiger is not immoral for eating other animals in the same way we are not immoral for eating animals, where we have a choice is in how to kill this animals and how to treat them in life, that is where morals become important

Being an omnivore doesn’t give you the option to completely shift from carnivore to herbivore. It allows you to broaden then kinds of foods you can eat so as not to become over reliant on a particular food source