Vegetarian/Vegan. Ethics and other discussion.

[a happy song]

It has protien doesn't it? We need protien, yeah!

http://www.vegansociety.com/food/nutrition/protein.php

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I disagree with the majority of meat eaters in this thread.
I believe that it is natural for us to eat meat. In the food chain, we are near, if not the top of the chain due to our greatly evolved intelligence.
This does not place us above animals in any way. Our lives are not worth more than a cow's, chicken's, or any other animal's rights. And are we really qualifed to decide whose lives are "worth" more? We will obviously be biased toward ourselves, and as we are the most evolved intelligence on Earth, there is no other species for us to debate this with.
Now something else that supports my above argument is how we have weaknesses as well. True, intelligence is the strength that has allowed us to dominate the food chain, but we do not have the speed of a leopard, or the flight of a bird, or the acrobatics of a monkey. Each species on Earth has it's own unique ability.
Also here's a scenario you might want to think about. Say aliens that are more intelligent than us came to Earth, kidnapped us, and brought them back to their planet to be put in zoos, or be made pets,or eaten. Just because the aliens have dominance over us, does that mean their lives are utimately better than ours? We would probably argue for equality, while the aliens would likely use their higher intelligence as "proof" their lives are more valuable.

I don't believe that an animal's life is as valuable as a human's, and I have sincere difficulties trying to rationalize that perception, so it's completely alien to me that you'd think eating chicken is as morally deplorable as personally murdering and cannibalizing another human.
...but I also think that equality of humans and other animals is a topic for a new thread altogether.

[Geti]

mmn, it probably should.

im not sure if dead_n was being sarcastic, but i sure hope so.
also im very happy with atob's and especially entwilight's posts. i agree with every point made. all of them.
thats pretty rare for me. thank you.

[BNW]

I love meat. Simply put. I know that the industry isn't as good if not anywhere close to how good it could be. I don't speak on behalf of them. I certainly don't like how most of the treat their animals, but I just love the taste of meat and what it brings to my palette. It may sound conceited, but that is how I feel.

[krusch]

i agree with every point made. all of them.
thats pretty rare for me. thank you.

Ahh! Thank you! It's nice to talk to likeminded people about it. I live in a very farming area, you see.

Eloquently put. Even if I'm not sure how happy I'd actually be to be hunted and eaten in any context I do heart this analogy.

Thanks. And nah, I wouldn't be happy either - I'm not happy to die yet. What I meant was, I wouldn't blame the lion. :P

Edit: and thanks for your post, atob. More motivation to go vegan.

[smartalco]

After skipping /most/ of this thread, here are my comments.

I will never regard an animals life equal to my own, and so far I have not met a human I would regard below that of any animal.

I am the most anti-vegetarian ever (I don't speak against it, my habits are the exact opposite), I /have/ to have meat, and if you discount potatoes (which hardly count as vegetables), I average 1 serving of fruit or vegetables a week (I might get more if there were some bananas around here, but that is rare). I live on meat and bread. For the purpose of adding a cliched phrase to this post: meat and grain is my bread and butter. As humans, we have survived thousands of years with meat as a staple of our food source. There are several thousand species of animals that eat other animals. I do not enjoy the thought of what my food used to be, and as such try not to linger on the thought, but meat is the primary source of my energy (mountain dew is another).

To the: our meat supply is eating 80% of our corn and 70% of our grain, corn is grain, so that 70% is misleading, and as it is a supply & demand industry, if the demand from commercial animal raising drops off, so will the supply, they won't keep growing the same amount leaving humans with a suddenly vastly increased food supply.

As it is nearly midnight here, my brain is only half function, and I have forgotten most of what I was thinking of, but you get the idea.

I don't dislike vegans or the like (or at least not for the reason of not eating meat...), but it is not something I could see myself doing any time soon.

[Atilla]

Our lives are not worth more than a cow's, chicken's, or any other animal's rights.

Point one: your immune system is constantly slaying tiny critters, and that can't really stop it other than by killing yourself. Do you advocate humans committing mass suicide so as to end the slaughter?

Point two: would you kill a human rather than swat two mosquitoes? Because that's what it means if our lives are not worth more than the lives of any other animals.
- Point Two A: Do you believe that serial killers should not be jailed, since most people kill far more animals and walk free (or, alternately, should everyone who's swatted a fly be jailed for murder)?

Point Three: If I have the same status as a cat, explain why the cat is allowed to eat birds and I am not.

Firstly, I strongly believe that if a person couldn't bring themselves to capture, kill, skin and prepare an animal before eating it, then they have no right to.

Furthermore, people who are unwilling to perform surgery because they're squeamish aren't entitled to medical care, people who would be unwilling to work on a sewage treatment plant shouldn't use toilets, and anyone who isn't willing to complete a degree in architecture and design their own house doesn't have the right to live indoors.



@smartalco's diet: Urgh. How do you not have horrible malnutrition? Do you live on vitamin supplements or something?

[a happy song]

Point one: your immune system is constantly slaying tiny critters, and that can't really stop it other than by killing yourself. Do you advocate humans committing mass suicide so as to end the slaughter?


Furthermore, people who are unwilling to perform surgery because they're squeamish aren't entitled to medical care, people who would be unwilling to work on a sewage treatment plant shouldn't use toilets, and anyone who isn't willing to complete a degree in architecture and design their own house doesn't have the right to live indoors.

I love how you come in to these debates and make the most inane and petty little analogies like you've made some kind of valid point. Instead of waving your ego around on a sharp stick, I'd prefer if you added something of value to the debate. How about it?

[Lenny]

I do agree in that animals do feel pain.

I've never been opposed being vegetarian or vegan, though personally I like my meat and wouldn't go without it.

I couldn't really go on much of a rant about this because I've never had much of an opinion on it; good choice either way, I reckon.

[Atilla]

I *am* making a valid point. Let me expand.

On the first point you quoted...

You stated that the lives of all animals are to be considered of equal value. Now, it is a fact that, as a matter of course, the human body fends off attacks by other creatures, sometimes killing them in the process. This is an inevitable part of living. What I'm saying is that it's simply not possible to live without ever harming another living thing, or even without harming another animal. Unless you're willing to support conclusions which most people would regard as ludicrous (cockroaches are as important as humans, therefore we should pile garbage everywhere to make the roaches happy, for example), the assertion that all lives have the same value needs to be qualified and explained.

Let's examine this with a different analogy: If your dog gets infested with fleas, is it okay to wash it with anti-flea stuff? Removing the parasite infection is important for the happiness and welfare of the dog, but results in the death of fleas. Three possible responses are:

1. The fleas are as important as the dog. Therefore, you should not kill many fleas for the benefit of one dog. In fact, we should probably help the fleas, since more animals are happy that way.
2. The fleas are as important as the dog. All things are one in the great balance of nature, which we should not disrupt. If the dog kills the fleas by itself, that is good; and if the fleas kill the dog, that also is good.
3. The fleas are as important as the dog. However, since the fleas are harming the dog, it's okay to kill them to protect the dog. We shouldn't kill fleas which aren't hurting anyone, though.

These are all beliefs in which the value of lives is considered equal, but the outcomes are vastly different. My point is that consistently applying option 1 would result in conclusions I doubt you'd accept (see cockroach example, above). Therefore, I assume you're thinking more along the lines of 2 or 3, and I'd like to know which one.




On the second: I'm questioning the basis behind the reasoning that "if you're not willing to do it yourself, you don't have the right to the goods". My point here is that being unwilling to do something doesn't imply anything about whether it's right or necessary. The surgery example is the best - some people are clearly too squeamish to perform surgery, yet believe it to be beneficial and necessary. They are therefore grateful that there are those who will perform it on their behalf for money. I'm not sure why you would draw a line between this and butchering - again, some people are too squeamish to do it, but hey! There's someone they can pay to do it instead. That's one of the benefits of belonging to a social species. People - and other animals - are exchanging various services and goods all the time. Some insect species, for example, have a queen which "isn't willing" to go out and harvest food with the drones, or have some members which don't gather food but instead defend the others in exchange for food.

I was also attempting to show that the assertion that "X is evil unless you're willing to do it yourself" also looks a bit odd if you apply it to other situations. Let's take, for instance, the statement "killing animals is evil, unless you're willing to do it yourself". Going by this credo (and counting humans as animals), mass murderers are totally innocent - since they're clearly willing to do it themselves - but hiring a bodyguard and ordering him to shoot anyone who attacks you is evil, since you're not willing to shoot the people yourself. Then, as I already mentioned, there are wacky example like "Sewage treatment is evil, unless you're willing to do it yourself". I hope you can see that, in general, this line of reasoning doesn't work. Remember, lots of people are willing to do things which are widely acknowledged as unethical!

Indeed, I think the argument that "if you're unwilling to do something yourself, it's unethical to ask someone else to do it" is rooted in a basic logical fallacy, known as affirming the consequent. If something is generally considered unethical, many people will be unwilling to do it; but that doesn't imply that if many people are unwilling to do something, that thing is unethical. Compare: if you're in New York, you're in America; but that doesn't imply that if you're in America, you're in New York.

[a happy song]

Fighting off parasites is part of the actual struggle for life, it's something of a necessity. Perhaps a comfort if you scrutanize it too closely for the sake of stretching a point (which is what you're doing here, really).

The difference comes with the outcome. Your body fights of parasites to keep itself in good health, people eat meat because they enjoy it but those of us in modern society don't need it anymore, not with all that we know about nutrition now.

I'm not really going to spend much time with your second retort (did you really compare the ethics of killing creatures for food to those of a serial killer? - and you call the sewer analogy wacky...) and of course I can see that this ideal doesn't stretch if you apply it to other situations, but really all the ones you listed are necessities (commercial cosmetic surgery aside) in the world we live in. Eating meat is not (minus certain climates/socities that currently rely on it).

As I said, I'm aware the principle doesn't stretch well, you'll rarely find strong ideals that do, that doesn't make the idea - to stop the suffering and abuse of billions of creatures for our own enjoyment - any less worthy.

[TheSeer]

Slightly different point: to me, vegetarianism seems to be extremely hypocritical (in the proper sense of the word). You don't eat meat, but you eat animal products. If you're opposed to factory farming and the meat industries' practices in regards to animal welfare... you're still condoning it being a vegetarian.

Long story short, (based mainly on the pro-herbivore site points in this thread) there isn't any justification to be a vegetarian other than you don't practice what you preach.

[Atilla]

Fighting off parasites is part of the actual struggle for life, it's something of a necessity. Perhaps a comfort if you scrutanize it too closely for the sake of stretching a point (which is what you're doing here, really).

The difference comes with the outcome. Your body fights of parasites to keep itself in good health, people eat meat because they enjoy it but those of us in modern society don't need it anymore, not with all that we know about nutrition now.

So you're saying that it's acceptable to kill animals (or people, I assume) if it's really necessary or if they're attempting to harm you, but that eating meat isn't necessary, right? That's what I wanted to be clear on. Some people believe that killing any animal, ever, under any circumstances, is a horrendous crime. Even when the animal in question is clearly a threat to your health, like a wasps' nest on your front porch ("The wasps have a right to live, too!"), which is... a bit impractical, to say the least.

I'm not really going to spend much time with your second retort (did you really compare the ethics of killing creatures for food to those of a serial killer? - and you call the sewer analogy wacky...) and of course I can see that this ideal doesn't stretch if you apply it to other situations, but really all the ones you listed are necessities (commercial cosmetic surgery aside) in the world we live in. Eating meat is not (minus certain climates/socities that currently rely on it).

People lived for thousands of years with neither sewage nor surgery. They both improve our quality of life drastically, but they're not strictly necessary - and I'm sure many people would argue that eating meat improves their quality of life.

Also, out of curiosity... if animal lives have the same value as human lives, how is killing a dozen innocent cows NOT comparable to killing a dozen humans? I mean, isn't that what it means for cows to be as important as humans?

As I said, I'm aware the principle doesn't stretch well, you'll rarely find strong ideals that do, that doesn't make the idea - to stop the suffering and abuse of billions of creatures for our own enjoyment - any less worthy.

That's not what I was arguing against. My problem is with the suggestion that it's only cruel if you're not willing to slaughter the animal yourself, which I regard as being entirely ludicrous. You say the idea is to stop the suffering of animals - I'm pretty sure the animal suffers the same amount whether the person who eats it would have been willing to slaughter it themselves or not. I mean, even if we accepted that argument, it weakens the vegetarian position, since all the meat-eaters can simply excuse themselves by saying "Yeah, I'd be totally willing to kill the animals myself if I had to." I'm fine with the argument that killing animals is cruel and should therefore not be done. That's precisely the argument vegetarians should be using, not some silliness about whether people are squeamish or what kind of teeth they have.

Slightly different point: to me, vegetarianism seems to be extremely hypocritical (in the proper sense of the word). You don't eat meat, but you eat animal products. If you're opposed to factory farming and the meat industries' practices in regards to animal welfare... you're still condoning it being a vegetarian.

Not as such. You can get free range/barn-laid eggs and so forth, though it's pretty difficult to find dairy products of an acceptable standard. Mind you, animals raised for slaughter don't have to be as poorly treated as they typically are, either. This is why I don't think vegetarianism is a particularly effective form of protest against current farming practices, or at least not at present... by the time you boycott every product which involves animal products from an unacceptable source, you might as well just bite the bullet and go vegan. This may change if farming practices become a large enough issue, of course.

[ℎalifax]

I do not care about the animals that suffer, because they do not affect the life I perceive in any significant way. Why, to use another example, should I care about what happens on another planet if it is does not, has not, and is never going to affect my life?

Also, I place a higher value on myself than I do on a cow. After all, the cow can't do anything with me, whereas I can harvest the cow to produce beef, milk, leather and other products that I may find useful. Humans are worth more than cows in the same way that cows are worth more than grass. The cow can eat the grass, all the grass can do is be eaten. Thus the grass is inferior to the cow, and the cow is inferior to me.

[Atilla]

Also, I place a higher value on myself than I do on a cow. After all, the cow can't do anything with me, whereas I can harvest the cow to produce beef, milk, leather and other products that I may find useful. Humans are worth more than cows in the same way that cows are worth more than grass. The cow can eat the grass, all the grass can do is be eaten. Thus the grass is inferior to the cow, and the cow is inferior to me.

Merely having the power to do something doesn't make it right, or make you somehow morally superior to those who lack such power. Otherwise we must conclude that slavery is justified, since anyone who has the power to keep slaves is clearly a superior specimen of humanity. In other words, might doesn't make right.

Also, I'm pretty sure cows could trample you to death or kick your ribs in. They're pretty strong. Just not terribly bright (or aggressive, in most cases).

[runningninja]

Also, I place a higher value on myself than I do on a cow. After all, the cow can't do anything with me, whereas I can harvest the cow to produce beef, milk, leather and other products that I may find useful. Humans are worth more than cows in the same way that cows are worth more than grass. The cow can eat the grass, all the grass can do is be eaten. Thus the grass is inferior to the cow, and the cow is inferior to me.

Merely having the power to do something doesn't make it right, or make you somehow morally superior to those who lack such power. Otherwise we must conclude that slavery is justified, since anyone who has the power to keep slaves is clearly a superior specimen of humanity. In other words, might doesn't make right.

Also, I'm pretty sure cows could trample you to death or kick your ribs in. They're pretty strong. Just not terribly bright (or aggressive, in most cases).

Agreed with Atilla.

1. The fleas are as important as the dog. Therefore, you should not kill many fleas for the benefit of one dog. In fact, we should probably help the fleas, since more animals are happy that way.
2. The fleas are as important as the dog. All things are one in the great balance of nature, which we should not disrupt. If the dog kills the fleas by itself, that is good; and if the fleas kill the dog, that also is good.
3. The fleas are as important as the dog. However, since the fleas are harming the dog, it's okay to kill them to protect the dog. We shouldn't kill fleas which aren't hurting anyone, though.

I agree with point 3.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

I love how you come in to these debates and make the most inane and petty little analogies like you've made some kind of valid point. Instead of waving your ego around on a sharp stick, I'd prefer if you added something of value to the debate. How about it?

This is borderline trolling. This isn't a verbal warning or anything, I'd just like to request that you don't cross that line.

Getting back on topic, there has to be some way of determining what kinds of things have the right to self-ownership, and which do not. As far as I can tell, it is the right to self-ownership that makes killing certain things (humans, for instance) immoral. There are premises that most people would agree are too general, such as "all things have the right to self-ownership." If that's the case then I'm a bad guy for stepping on the ground. This principle is clearly absurd. If all forms of life are equal in their entitlement to self-ownership, then I ought to stop knowingly killing thousands upon thousands of life forms every day. The only way for me to do this (of which I am aware) is to kill myself. The seven billion human deaths that would result from this morality would be nothing compared to the bacteria lives that would be saved. But that doesn't matter, since we can see that this is a silly way of giving self-ownership. Even if we accept all animals as having the right to own themselves, then insects are included, which is absurd enough, in my opinion, to demonstrate that that principle is false. Ultimately, I think, you have to have some other governing principle. Mine is intelligence - that is, the ability to reason in an abstract way. Cows can't do this, so I see it as morally acceptable to eat beef.

[a happy song]

This is borderline trolling.

No it's not, it was a request for Atilla to make himself clear without resorting to cheap tactics (mocking analogies with no real explanatin), they were cheapening his point. Sure, my words were a little sharp, but so were his. I was poking fun at both of us. I wouldn't usually argue against something like this, but I think you should pay attention to the context more.

-

Also, out of curiosity... if animal lives have the same value as human lives, how is killing a dozen innocent cows NOT comparable to killing a dozen humans? I mean, isn't that what it means for cows to be as important as humans?

I didn't say Cows are as important as Humans. I said I don't believe we should willingly cause another living thing suffering to indulge an urge.

My problem is with the suggestion that it's only cruel if you're not willing to slaughter the animal yourself.

I think my point's been muddled a little. I believe that killing an animal for meat in any regard is cruel, it has nothing to do with the slaughterers ability to rationalize the act.

Sewer systems have raised the standard of living, increased health, produced cleaner enviroments and generally improved the impact we have on the surrounding areas to our homes. Essential life saving surgery is just that. These things are fully essential to our standard of living, Meat no longer is (nutrition is the point of food, taste and preference are indulgences). My point was that (I believe) we should all know where our food comes from, and what the true cost of it is before we consume it. This is why I buy organic products and (when I can) locally sourced.

[heatwave]

I *am* making a valid point. Let me expand.

On the first point you quoted...

You stated that the lives of all animals are to be considered of equal value. Now, it is a fact that, as a matter of course, the human body fends off attacks by other creatures, sometimes killing them in the process. This is an inevitable part of living. What I'm saying is that it's simply not possible to live without ever harming another living thing, or even without harming another animal.

Exactly. But we should still do all we can to reduce the amount of creatures we kill in our lifetime, right? That's why I'm a Vegan. I've been a Vegan my entire life, and I'm going to continue being Vegan for the rest of my life. I'm saving as many lives as I can.

[Donfuy]

Pre-stuff: Meat is good, "I couldn't live without meat" (in the way that I like it too much xD), oh god I love beefs.

Stuff: Wouldn't chickens and some of those species already be extinguished if we didn't eat them? Chickens would be extinguished by other animals. We preserved them...


This can sound...stupid... but an anti-meat argument rose to mind... what about dodos? Was their extinction an effect of the un-mature of thoughts on those ages (1600's I think...)?

If I remember more stuff... I'll post later :P

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

This is borderline trolling.

No it's not, it was a request for Atilla to make himself clear without resorting to cheap tactics (mocking analogies with no real explanatin), they were cheapening his point. Sure, my words were a little sharp, but so were his. I was poking fun at both of us. I wouldn't usually argue against something like this, but I think you should pay attention to the context more.

It was borderline trolling, atob.

[Geti]

Stuff: Wouldn't chickens and some of those species already be extinguished if we didn't eat them? Chickens would be extinguished by other animals. We preserved them...

so? if they evolved to be useless and die out, that is the natural order of things. however, if we keep chickens, and feed them, and they give use their eggs, this is symbiotic and fine. less so keeping them in a big cage indoors, less so cutting off their beaks and claws. i think if you are a vego for the ethics, you should either keep your own birds or get organic freerange eggs.

Also, I'm pretty sure cows could trample you to death or kick your ribs in. They're pretty strong. Just not terribly bright (or aggressive, in most cases).

they are damn strong. i have a cousin who got a leg and an arm broken by a cow. stupid boy was poking it with a sharp stick.

So you're saying that it's acceptable to kill animals (or people, I assume) if it's really necessary or if they're attempting to harm you, but that eating meat isn't necessary, right? That's what I wanted to be clear on. Some people believe that killing any animal, ever, under any circumstances, is a horrendous crime. Even when the animal in question is clearly a threat to your health, like a wasps' nest on your front porch ("The wasps have a right to live, too!"), which is... a bit impractical, to say the least.

i believe in self defense, so yes, parasites trying to sap the life out of me or an animal im close to i can kill. similarly, if someone is trying to kill me or a person im close to, i can kill or subdue them in self defense, as it would happen if a lion challenged another.

Point Three: If I have the same status as a cat, explain why the cat is allowed to eat birds and I am not.

YOU EAT CHICKEN! RAWRAWRAWR

[Atilla]

Also, out of curiosity... if animal lives have the same value as human lives, how is killing a dozen innocent cows NOT comparable to killing a dozen humans? I mean, isn't that what it means for cows to be as important as humans?

I didn't say Cows are as important as Humans. I said I don't believe we should willingly cause another living thing suffering to indulge an urge.

No, sorry, that was runningninja (and I quote: "Our lives are not worth more than a cow's, chicken's, or any other animal's rights."). Consider the stuff I said about that to be directed at him instead.

My problem is with the suggestion that it's only cruel if you're not willing to slaughter the animal yourself.

I think my point's been muddled a little. I believe that killing an animal for meat in any regard is cruel, it has nothing to do with the slaughterers ability to rationalize the act.

Firstly, I strongly believe that if a person couldn't bring themselves to capture, kill, skin and prepare an animal before eating it, then they have no right to.

?

Slightly confused now. Doesn't the above quote indicate that it is somehow more abhorrent to eat meat if you're unwilling to perform the slaughter yourself?

[a happy song]

It was borderline trolling, atob.

Rich, but you're probably right. It wasn't intended maliciously, regardless.

My problem is with the suggestion that it's only cruel if you're not willing to slaughter the animal yourself.

I think my point's been muddled a little. I believe that killing an animal for meat in any regard is cruel, it has nothing to do with the slaughterers ability to rationalize the act.

Firstly, I strongly believe that if a person couldn't bring themselves to capture, kill, skin and prepare an animal before eating it, then they have no right to.

?

Slightly confused now. Doesn't the above quote indicate that it is somehow more abhorrent to eat meat if you're unwilling to perform the slaughter yourself?

We're muddled again. The First quote there was replying to the section of yours including

"killing animals is evil, unless you're willing to do it yourself"

I didn't say it was evil unless you do it yourself (the second quote indicates that I believe it's 'evil' regardless). I just said if you're going to enjoy the fruits of taking a life for your own enjoyment, you should be willing to do the deed yourself.

[origami_alligator]

Point 1: Amino Acids and Proteins
There is one point that nobody has touched on and that is the ability of the body to manufacture and utilize whole proteins. The enzymes in your body that attach amino acids together are not necessary and are counter-intuitive to a healthy body. When your body has to work harder to get the same result it could obtain with a few simple pieces of meat it does not make sense to me. Why anybody would want their body to work harder to connect proteins where they could easily chew, swallow, digest and obtain whole proteins without causing their body to do anything extra bewilders me.

If you're eating cheese and milk and eggs then this does not apply to you. Mostly this is for the Vegan side of things. (so yeah, whoever was going vegan I'd suggest not since your body doesn't perform better when it has to connect amino acids to create proteins)


Point 2: Plant Sentience
[quote=geti]plants have never proven their sentience, so i feel that it is fine to eat them.[/quote]
Read this and then convince me that plants are not sentient
Sentience