Vegetarian/Vegan. Ethics and other discussion.

[runningninja]

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.

I think all beings have self-ownership. But, in the natural order of life, this self-ownership is abused. Also consider this - is it wrong for a lion to kill a human, because a human, in your terms, has more self-ownership?

[TheSeer]

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.

I'm curious, by what virtue should you have to be willing to kill the animal yourself? Or... take a life as you put it.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

RN:
It's categorically incorrect to describe a lion's behavior as "right" or "wrong," since those are terms used to describe moral agents, and I do not believe that morality can apply to a creature incapable of abstraction. If a lion ate me, it would be too bad for me, but it would be nature's causal tendencies at work, and not the will of a conscious thinker.

Also, you say that you believe that all beings have the right to self-ownership. Why is this? If you don't explain your reasoning, there's no way we can ever sort out our disagreement.

[a happy song]

(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)

The difference is negligible. And besides, if you bothered you could find yourself millions of Vegans who are living perfectly healthy lives (if not healthier due to above average intake of fruit and veg).

Really, it just reads like a pathetic attempt at a scare tactic in place of any real evidence.

Read this and then convince me that plants are not sentient
Sentience

Plants? Perhaps. But fruit and vegtables?

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Well, to eat most vegetables, you have to kill the plant. On the other hand, that argument is pretty much impossible to apply to fruit, which evolved to be eaten.

[blackson]

For every plant, you pretty much kill thousands of insects, and potentially many animals

[runningninja]

RN:
It's categorically incorrect to describe a lion's behavior as "right" or "wrong," since those are terms used to describe moral agents, and I do not believe that morality can apply to a creature incapable of abstraction. If a lion ate me, it would be too bad for me, but it would be nature's causal tendencies at work, and not the will of a conscious thinker.

Also, you say that you believe that all beings have the right to self-ownership. Why is this? If you don't explain your reasoning, there's no way we can ever sort out our disagreement.

All animals have the same rights because:
-Humans are really animals: Yes, offically we are animals, although we enjoy thinking of ourselves as a being seperate.
-Humans are worth more in a human's perspective: I would kill a cow instead of a human. But if the cow had the intelligence to comprehend the worth of a being, it would vouch for cows as the premier species. From a universal perspective, all animals are equal. But it is diffucult for humans to take a universal perspective on any issue. No offense to anyone in particular.
-All animals have their own abilities: I stated this point in one of my previous posts, but I'll say it again - every animal (including humans) have their own useful ablities.

Something else I wish to clarify: all this is from a natural perspective. We have unnaturally used our intelligence to dominant all other animal species. We are still on the same level as other natural beings, but our dominance and higher intelligence has (albeit naturally) led us to believe that we are worth more than other species.

[lord_day]

For every plant, you pretty much kill thousands of insects, and potentially many animals

What what what?
Can you justify that? There is no guarantee that the plant has any insects living in it, and I see no way in which killing one plant will kill many animals...

[runningninja]

For every plant, you pretty much kill thousands of insects, and potentially many animals

What what what?
Can you justify that? There is no guarantee that the plant has any insects living in it, and I see no way in which killing one plant will kill many animals...

Food chains. When a plant is killed, the insects feeding on it have no plant to eat, resulting in death. Animals that ate those insects die off as well, and so on.
A domino effect, really.

[Evil_Sire]

so people kill and eat animals?

fuck-a-doodle-do.

Things eat eachother, insects gobble up plants, animals gobble up insects, we gobble up animals.

One dies we all do.

End of story.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

All animals have the same rights because:
-Humans are really animals: Yes, offically we are animals, although we enjoy thinking of ourselves as a being seperate.

I recognize this. But this is irrelevant. You haven't done anything to show what qualities all animals possess that make them worthy of self-ownership. On the other hand, I have explained that the ability to reason on an abstract level does give a being the right to self-ownership. You have yet to say anything that refutes this claim.

-Humans are worth more in a human's perspective: I would kill a cow instead of a human. But if the cow had the intelligence to comprehend the worth of a being, it would vouch for cows as the premier species. From a universal perspective, all animals are equal. But it is diffucult for humans to take a universal perspective on any issue. No offense to anyone in particular.

Key word being "if." Fact is, cows are not capable of abstraction, as far as anyone can tell.

-All animals have their own abilities: I stated this point in one of my previous posts, but I'll say it again - every animal (including humans) have their own useful ablities.

That, again, is irrelevant. You have to show how the specific abilities of an animal pertain to their right to self-ownership. "Having abilities" is totally and completely unimportant. Bacteria "have abilities." Does this mean that they, too, are worthy of self-ownership? We've seen which way that road goes...

Something else I wish to clarify: all this is from a natural perspective. We have unnaturally used our intelligence to dominant all other animal species. We are still on the same level as other natural beings, but our dominance and higher intelligence has (albeit naturally) led us to believe that we are worth more than other species.

Define "natural," because I think you're using it in a very ambiguous way.

[Donfuy]

Something else I wish to clarify: all this is from a natural perspective. We have unnaturally used our intelligence to dominant all other animal species. We are still on the same level as other natural beings, but our dominance and higher intelligence has (albeit naturally) led us to believe that we are worth more than other species.

Aren't we? We are greater than them, because we "showed" them that. We're stronger.

Uh... I bit like Romans were... they were greater, so they had the power to manipulate the others.


Vegetarians feel guilty for killing other animals, but that's because we are intelligent and rational. (this wasn't the word I wanted to use sorry)

[a happy song]

Uh... I bit like Romans were... they were greater, so they had the power to manipulate the others.

With great power comes great responsiblity! (I've always wanted to quote that in a debate, /geekout)

Power does not equal right.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

All animals have the same rights because:
-Humans are really animals: Yes, offically we are animals, although we enjoy thinking of ourselves as a being seperate.

Just because you can find a label that describes two things does not make them equal.
$10 and $20 are both measured in US Dollars, but they are clearly not equal.
A pack of three wolves and a pack of four wolves are both packs of wolves, but they are clearly not equal.
A mathematical prodigy and someone with Down's Syndrome are both humans, and can even be of the same gender, age, ethnicity, eye color, hair color, financial background, and upbringing, but one will obviously achieve far more than the other.
It seems to me that you're under some strange impression that life is fair. We try to make it as fair as possible with the institution of a legal system and by encouraging a certain morality, but the amount we can make fair is still ludicrously small. Reality does not care about how humans categorize things, and reality will always be completely indifferent to our human conception of fairness.
I don't know of any reasonable person who would suggest that humans are not animals, because we clearly are. We're one of the most superior animals (specifically, the most superior of Earth's animals), but animals nonetheless. And we're not the only animals superior to other animals. There's probably a whole twisted and possibly overlapping hierarchy that I would give a rat's ass about were I interested in the slightest in biology.

-Humans are worth more in a human's perspective: I would kill a cow instead of a human. But if the cow had the intelligence to comprehend the worth of a being, it would vouch for cows as the premier species.

If a cow had anything close to a human's potential for abstract thought, they'd be rising up right alongside us as their own culture, and possibly even mixing with ours. But they don't, and for that reason they are quite significantly inferior.
They would if they could, but they can't, and that's the frickin' point. I'm sure that grizzly bears, if they had super-massive and telekinetic brains, would appreciate negotiating a mutual benefit with humanity... but they don't have super-massive, telekinetic brains so the point is entirely moot.
Let's focus on what actually is and resolve the issue there, and we can wander over to the la-la-land in which cows can think like humans at the after-party.

From a universal perspective, all animals are equal.

...noooooo, they aren't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution by Natural Selection

But it is diffucult for humans to take a universal perspective on any issue. No offense to anyone in particular.

Not that you've done this for any of your other points, but I'd like to see any studies in any field of psychology that would lead one to such a conclusion.

-All animals have their own abilities: I stated this point in one of my previous posts, but I'll say it again - every animal (including humans) have their own useful ablities.

Human:

• extremely versatile hands that allow for unparalleled excellence in fine manipulation of tools as well as forceful use on par with many of the strongest of nature's other land animals
• physical body well-adapted for survival in a tremendous variety of climates and conditions, a survivability beaten out only by organisms on the cellular level
• omnivorous diet that does not force dependence to a particular ecology
• brain that allows for such a profound advantage in depth of analytical, procedural, and abstract thinking that no other animal that has ever existed has come anywhere remotely close to the manipulation of one's environment for his benefit as demonstrated by humans; see also the sidebar on Science
• means of communication that can produce such an immeasurably large number of combinations of distinguishable sounds that enables a human to express extremely complicated ideas (which would require a powerful brain -- which humans have; see previous point)
• culture that has so effectively been able to physically dominate all other forms of life that humanity in its entirety is never meaningfully threatened nor even anywhere near mildly threatened by any other form of life, and continuing to keep such a devastating monopoly on this power is virtually effortless

Sidebar: Science
Science is the formalized study of reality to such an extent that its application can be used to manipulate the very most primal laws of the natural universe to an organism's wishes. In stark contrast to betterment of a species through natural selection, a mere few millennia of scientific study can raise the status of an organism to relatively godlike proportions, enabling the organism to consistently and effortlessly perform tasks and manipulate its environment in such a way that the very most basic ideas involved are completely beyond the scope of what an organism that does not study science can ever hope to understand.

Cow:

• redundant digestive system that enables the cow to extract more nutrition from foods difficult to digest, such as grass
• horns which can be used to gore suitably large animals immediately in front of the cow (males only)
• powerful build that makes them useful to humans in the humans' application of the Scientific field of Agriculture (see sidebar on Science; it should be noted that even though they are used for the purpose, cows are not mentally equipped to understand even the very basics of Agriculture) (males only)
• suitably high degree of usefulness for humans' selfish purposes that every aspect of a cow's life is dominated by the will of a handful of humans; this means that the cow is not in danger of extinction due to its clear disposition to fail miserably in the process of natural selection

Yep, it totally looks like humans and cows are of equal value. I mean, hey, nature itself completely disagrees with you, but what authority do the natural laws of the universe have in the face of the mighty RunningNinja, a human whose age exceeds an entire decade?
Before commenting on the comparison, please do note that half of the cow's advantages come entirely from being useful to humans.

Things Humans Can Accomplish:

• continue knowledge of previous generations via historical recording, be it through oral tradition, writings, or electronic archives of thousands of international news networks
• travel from one point on the planet to any other point in less than 24 hours
• catalogue a tremendous number of possible diseases, viruses, and difficulties caused by biological abnormalities, and then systematically make an entire culture of humans effectively immune to these afflictions by detailing and continuously improving effective treatments for them
• ignore all detrimental effects of weather of a magnitude below catastrophic natural disasters while harvesting the power of the climate to improve our standard of living anyway
• not only develop the ability to even observe objects in space, but also derive phenomenal quantities of astrological information without having to leave our planet ourselves
• split an atom
• completely annihilate all forms of life on a whim, and possibly obliterate an entire astrological body in the process

(...and for you religious types, we can also conceive of God's Grace and aspire to be like Him (because we can also read, lol))

Things Cows Can Accomplish:

• chew grass really, really well

Something else I wish to clarify: all this is from a natural perspective. We have unnaturally used our intelligence to dominant all other animal species.

This above all else is what completely boggles me about people like you -- what the heck on God's green Earth would make you think that human intelligence is not natural? It's just absolutely bewildering to me that it could be seen as anything but natural aptitude. Unless you adopt some extremely convoluted and just plain ridiculous definition of nature that completely forbids the use of an organism's brain, I can't see what you could possibly have to say to defend this point of view.
I don't know about you, but my brain is completely natural. I have never used any chemical enhancements or implanted microchips to improve my brain's function above what it naturally is (don't worry, science is taking us there real soon), but even if it was, then it still all stems from the quite natural intelligence of humans.

We are still on the same level as other natural beings, but our dominance and higher intelligence has (albeit naturally) led us to believe that we are worth more than other species.

*cough* *sputter*
So you, yourself, even acknowledge that we are naturally dominant, but you're still saying we're somehow equal?
How does that work, exactly?

[handofgod]

Human's are animals.

Animal's in the wild (carnivores) kill other animals and eat them. We do that too. Animals in the wild establish a territory and defend it. We do that too.

Anyone who disagrees with this can do two things.

1) watch the news every night and see if you're not depressed by how crooked our society is.

2) Live amongst the woodland creatures for a while.

On the topic of Veganism, I myself am a declared hippy. I love music, life, and mostly nature. I despise the cruelty that is done to many innocent animals, dogs, etc.

But I'm not a vegetarian. I like the taste of meat. Of course, if we didn't eat cows what would they do? Its a proven fact that farm animals contribute to global warming, so what do we do with them. Cows and pigs and turkeys may have been wild a long time ago. But nowadays cows are domesticated animals that are bred to be killed and eaten. If it weren't for this we wouldn't have anything to do with them.

Its true, what atob says about power and responsibility. But we abused our responsibility to the point that ALL species are lower than us and therefore can just be killed or whatever, read Animal Farm by George Orwell.

[otters]

Its a proven fact that farm animals contribute to global warming, so what do we do with them.

O___o
Wait, wait. You're saying that we eat meat because if we don't, the farm animals will destroy the ozone layer?
And how are they doing that, anyway?

[KinGAleX]

incluye, you can't be serious. It's a well-known fact that the majorital contribution of methane (a gas which traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide) to our atmosphere, comes from cow excretions (among other livestock). So, in a sense, every cow you eat saves the atmosphere from being subjected to methane.

[otters]

...oh.

[SkyPanda]

incluye, you can't be serious. It's a well-known fact that the majorital contribution of methane (a gas which traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide) to our atmosphere, comes from cow excretions (among other livestock). So, in a sense, every cow you eat saves the atmosphere from being subjected to methane.

Except, if there were no meat industry, wouldn't there be less cows?

[Turtle]

incluye, you can't be serious. It's a well-known fact that the majorital contribution of methane (a gas which traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide) to our atmosphere, comes from cow excretions (among other livestock). So, in a sense, every cow you eat saves the atmosphere from being subjected to methane.

Except, if there were no meat industry, wouldn't there be less cows?

Yeah. The cows wouldn't dream of having kids if they knew their kids woudn't be eaten. How disgraceful.
I'm pretty sure there'd still be plenty of cows. Even if humans decided to stop drinking cow milk.

[krusch]

Tsuki, female cows (actual "cows" - the males are "bulls") have horns too.

I'd just like to clarify, the "value" of animals' lives vs. humans' lives shouldn't even be coming into this argument, as our lives are only dependant on killing other animals in very rare circumstances (like lion attacks, or something). Meat eating is not essential to an individual human's survival or general health (I couldn't say what the effect would be if the whole human race stopped eating meat, obviously, but the point stands). If you ask any of the vegans/vegetarians in this thread for the motivations behind their veganism/vegetarianism, I'm sure they'll tell you it's about the pain and suffering that brings meat/animal products to their plate.

So, we should be debating whether our pleasure is worth their pain (or not, because it isn't :P).

[origami_alligator]

(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)

The difference is negligible. And besides, if you bothered you could find yourself millions of Vegans who are living perfectly healthy lives (if not healthier due to above average intake of fruit and veg).

Really, it just reads like a pathetic attempt at a scare tactic in place of any real evidence.

Read this and then convince me that plants are not sentient
Sentience

Plants? Perhaps. But fruit and vegtables?

I never said you couldn't be healthy, I just said it was counter-intuitive to a healthy body. It's a fact that your body needs whole proteins to survive, and it is a fact that the majority of fruits and (more specifically) vegetables rarely offer whole proteins. Therefore your body is forced to create those whole proteins where you could simply obtain them from a very small portion of meat. It's not like you have to eat a whole sirloin steak. Most vegans that I've known usually take a protein supplement because they don't get whole proteins. Why would they need to take a supplement if they were trying to lead a healthy life?

For your second point, I was just trying to point out that some plants do have sentience, just not a visible sort.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Tsuki, female cows (actual "cows" - the males are "bulls") have horns too.

And they can actually use them effectively?
News to me...

I'd just like to clarify, the "value" of animals' lives vs. humans' lives shouldn't even be coming into this argument, as our lives are only dependant on killing other animals in very rare circumstances (like lion attacks, or something).

Or, in the case of many past cultures, when they needed to eat.

Meat eating is not essential to an individual human's survival or general health

As for our case, watching TV isn't necessary for our survival, either. In fact, very little of what modern ("civilized") humans do is necessary for our survival.
Eating meat leads to killing more animals.
Using a gasoline-fueled vehicle destroys the environment.
Watching TV leads to burning more fossil fuels to generate electricity, which also destroys our environment.
Buying many brand-name goods contributes to exploitation of underpaid labor in East Asian countries.
I drive a car, watch TV, consume brand-name goods, and eat meat. None of it is necessary for my survival, but that's no reason that any of those things should be abolished.

So, we should be debating whether our pleasure is worth their pain (or not, because it isn't :P).

Y'know, it's actually a rarity these days that a company might choose to intentionally abuse their animals. We do have, like, laws and things that discourage that. Most of these animals' lives are just... uneventful, which you really can't argue is much different from what they would've experienced anyway.

[a happy song]

I never said you couldn't be healthy, I just said it was counter-intuitive to a healthy body. It's a fact that your body needs whole proteins to survive, and it is a fact that the majority of fruits and (more specifically) vegetables rarely offer whole proteins. Therefore your body is forced to create those whole proteins where you could simply obtain them from a very small portion of meat. It's not like you have to eat a whole sirloin steak. Most vegans that I've known usually take a protein supplement because they don't get whole proteins. Why would they need to take a supplement if they were trying to lead a healthy life?

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

As for our case, watching TV isn't necessary for our survival, either. In fact, very little of what modern ("civilized") humans do is necessary for our survival.
Using a gasoline-fueled vehicle destroys the environment.
Watching TV leads to burning more fossil fuels to generate electricity, which also destroys our environment.

These things do not inflict a direct suffering like the killing of animals for their flesh does.

Buying many brand-name goods contributes to exploitation of underpaid labor in East Asian countries.

I'm not sure how bringing up completely separate ethical problems furthers your point against the fact that eating meat is a barbaric and redundant practice.

I drive a car, watch TV, consume brand-name goods, and eat meat. None of it is necessary for my survival, but that's no reason that any of those things should be abolished.

As I said above: eating meat inflicts a precise and consistent suffering on specific living things. That's a very good reason to abolish it.

Brand named goods should be policed more as the end result in many (not all) cases is very similar.

Driving your car and watching your TV do not cause a direct harm to anyone specifically and the actual damage they're doing to the environment is one that can be debated with no clear outcome at present. They're not comparable.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

As for our case, watching TV isn't necessary for our survival, either. In fact, very little of what modern ("civilized") humans do is necessary for our survival.
Using a gasoline-fueled vehicle destroys the environment.
Watching TV leads to burning more fossil fuels to generate electricity, which also destroys our environment.

These things do not inflict a direct suffering like the killing of animals for their flesh does.

So you only care about the suffering of animals, and not the suffering of our Mother Earth? She bleeds when we pollute her, atob. More than that, we're making the world a more hostile place for all of Mother's creations when we pollute. What's worse - hurting fewer than all animals, or hurting all animals and all their future generations?
I'd just like you to be consistent, that's all.

Buying many brand-name goods contributes to exploitation of underpaid labor in East Asian countries.

I'm not sure how bringing up completely separate ethical problems furthers your point against the fact that eating meat is a barbaric and redundant practice.

If it turns out that there are some conveniences for which you'd tolerate someone or something suffering, then it's easier to demonstrate that living better at someone else's expense is simply the way of things, and it might also point to potential hypocrisy on your part. I mean, you do drive a car and buy from brand names, don't you?
It's difficult to give yourself much convenience without having someone else suffer for it. And frankly, there are bigger problems than our carnivorous society - the animals merely stare at a blank wall for the few years of their lives before they're efficiently killed, and they'll never know a human lifetime of emotional and physical struggle to support a small Chinese family with their $0.02/day salary.
Beyond that, do you have any idea how much expense and dramatic reshuffling of a few nation's economies would have to happen to accommodate a spontaneous, universal vegetarian diet? I don't think the animals are suffering enough (because most aren't really suffering much at all) to warrant such a huge expense to us humans (not to mention the populations of a number of animals commonly eaten may become extinct entirely, if we don't rely on them for anything more than their meat). Global panic, countless ruined financial lives, and genocide - is getting rid of something you described as pointless really worth all that?

Brand named goods should be policed more as the end result in many (not all) cases is very similar.

And they are. We do the best we can. But the same goes for the meat market - we do have regulations in place that force the meat industry to go out of its way to make sure the animals stay healthy before their flesh is harvested for our consumption. You make it sound like they run chicken torture facilities and no one's trying to stop them.

Driving your car and watching your TV do not cause a direct harm to anyone specifically and the actual damage they're doing to the environment is one that can be debated with no clear outcome at present. They're not comparable.

On the contrary, sir, driving your car and watching TV causes indirect harm to everyone now and all future generations on Earth. Pollution alone damages and destroys entire ecologies, and oil spills, which are devastating, wouldn't happen so frequently if fewer people drove cars that run on gasoline. You're also contributing to the buildup of Greenhouse Gasses and indiscriminately irradiating an entire area of the Earth!
And then there's Global Warming. By saying that there's no clear argument concerning its validity, you're admitting that it can't be ruled out. Are you the sort that would play Russian Roulette, atob?