|
“When we examine racism, we see that the justifications for it came from dividing the world into the 'in-group' and the 'out-group'. We are obligated to extend to those in the in-group (for example, white people) rights and ethical treatment. Those in the out-group are inferior and unimportant and as such, are not worthy of such rights. We are justified in treating them in whatever manner we so choose.”
This is not necessarily true. A race may dominate another because it is “desirable” to do so. For instance, the green people of island A have made slaves of the blue people of island B. The greens do nor believe the blue people to be inferior, they just like having slaves. Whether blues are “worthy” of rights is a question that does not even occur to greens.
To assume otherwise (or argue that this is unethical regardless) requires an assumption that morality is independent of and unaffected by either popular opinion or by the edicts of those in power, and that morality applies to people even if they do not personally subscribe to it.
How you could make any such a claim while at the same time denying any religious argument is a puzzle. By what authority would these ethical rules be imposed?
So regarding the question of eating meat: In a practical sense, eating meat as part of a balanced diet is nutritious and tasty, and so "good" for the individual who has easy, affordable access to it. However, devoting resources to raising meat is less efficient than raising directly-edible plants, so it’s possible to see meat as a luxury.
Now, lets see someone make a non-ethical argument that I (in a prosperous country that can afford meat) should care about those who would benefit from less grain fed to cattle and more sent to poor countries.
|