Moral Obligation (Response to Tyler)

In response to Tyler - full post here

I think it would be altogether wonderful if the desire to eat meat naturally dissipated after meeting those conditions that you specified. Unfortunately that is not something that is very likely to happen. So, in response, we need to determine if, regardless of people's desire, it is wrong to eat meat, and therefore obligatory to follow a vegetarian diet. The question is thus: what if the desire doesn't dissipate?

Here is an argument that can result from the conclusion that "people only have a moral obligation to form a congruenc[e] between their beliefs and actions":

Hitler believed that it was okay and even good to kill millions of Jewish people, and he did kill millions of Jewish people. Therefore, he fulfilled his moral obligations.

Basically, the conclusion that one must reach from this argument is that actions have no moral value, and that any action can be justified in reference to belief. This would probably lead to a high crime rate with no way to justly defend people's rights.

Instead, I think we need to realize that, while one does not have an obligation to believe in a moral proposition, people are obligated to act in a moral way. People can believe that vegetarianism is wrong and that it's okay to kill millions of people, but if eating animals and killing millions of people is wrong, then people have the moral obligation to be vegetarian and to refrain from killing millions of people.