Are we vegetarians hypocrites?

[YesNo]

When I sprayed ant killer on some ants in the house they did seem to writhe as if they were in pain. I now set out these ant traps which allow them to take the poison back to their nests so they can die out of sight out of mind.

If it makes one feel better, aka suffer less, one can always pretend that their dying was a simple mechanical motion of an insentient object.

All of that makes me think that the suffering some vegetarians or vegans are trying to eliminate is their own. However, I don't want that comment to belittle the honest compassion that many vegetarians feel and that motivates their choices.

[Dodo25]

All of that makes me think that the suffering some vegetarians or vegans are trying to eliminate is their own. However, I don't want that comment to belittle the honest compassion that many vegetarians feel and that motivates their choices.

Have you watched some factory farm documentaries?

It may be true that for a lot of people, being veg*an is more about how they themselves feel. Just like donating to charities can be that. But animal suffering does happen on a massive scale, and single people can and do make a difference.

Regarding insects:
They're a pretty diverse bunch, some almost certainly aren't sentient as I see it, for instance, totally rigid behavior like that: http://www.personalityresearch.org/e...exishness.html
Leaves no room for consciousness as an adaptive (or by-product) feature.

As for cockroaches or bees, I wouldn't completely rule out that they're sentient, but I still consider it unlikely. I usually just kill insects or spiders quickly when they're inside, I try not to kill them in ways that could be painful. I've made a bad experience trying to kill a cockroach in Egypt that way, these things are indestructible, so from now on when I see a monster like that, I just try to put it outside. Even though it will likely die a painful death eventually anyway.

[YesNo]

As for cockroaches or bees, I wouldn't completely rule out that they're sentient, but I still consider it unlikely. I usually just kill insects or spiders quickly when they're inside, I try not to kill them in ways that could be painful. I've made a bad experience trying to kill a cockroach in Egypt that way, these things are indestructible, so from now on when I see a monster like that, I just try to put it outside. Even though it will likely die a painful death eventually anyway.

If it will likely die a "painful death", doesn't that sort of make the cockroach "sentient"?

I recently finished reading Sam Harris' essay, "Free Will". He argues that we don't have any. It is all an illusion. It puzzles me how someone can argue that we don't have free will and then propose that we treat criminals differently than we do. I mean, didn't he just say we have no free will?

Anyway, I know you have a different worldview than others who are vegetarians. Many of these people I assume have a religious background and vegetarianism is part of a broader ethical or spiritual practice.

In your case, I see vegetarianism as a way to make a blind, random, godless world good by reducing suffering. I admire this. Don't get me wrong. However, I wonder to what extent you agree with Harris about free will. Are humans free enough in your worldview to even choose to become vegetarians?

[Dodo25]

If it will likely die a "painful death", doesn't that sort of make the cockroach "sentient"?

Yeah, what I meant was that cockroaches die in ways that would be painful if they are sentient.

However, I wonder to what extent you agree with Harris about free will. Are humans free enough in your worldview to even choose to become vegetarians?

I haven't read Harris' essay, but I probably agree with most of it.
I don't think free will in the traditional sense exist. The concept doesn't even make sense to me, if decisions aren't determined (by things like "reasons"), then what we do would be random, and that wouldn't be "will" anymore. I don't think the traditional concept of free will is even worth wanting. I like the compatibilist view Dennett presents in this paper: http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/...rbaerfinal.pdf

He redefines free will to something he thinks people care about but fail to articulate properly. "Free will, if we have it, is whatever gives us moral responsibility". This means that, if treating people as if they are in fact responsible for their actions will lead to them behaving better, then that's what we should do, and "free will" would then be the extent to which people can plan for long-term goals. Long-term goals are the things you want to do "for your own reasons". In that sense, I think yes, people can choose to be vegetarians and they can follow through with it. (Maybe some people don't have the impulse control for it, but even they can reduce the amount of animal products they eat. I have terrible impulse control, but since I do ethics practically for a living, I have enough to motivate myself for things.)

But as I said, that's a completely different definition and I don't believe in free will in the usual sense. I don't think the notion of "deserving something" makes sense. I'd be in favor of sending even the worst criminals to happy island if there was a way of doing so without the rest of society noticing it. If we send all criminals to happy island then everyone would become a criminal, so that doesn't work. I'm in favor of punishment to the extent it acts as a deterrent, but other than that, I don't think it makes any sense to punish people for their past experiences and the way their brain is wired. It's those things that determine our actions after all.

Anyway, I know you have a different worldview than others who are vegetarians. Many of these people I assume have a religious background and vegetarianism is part of a broader ethical or spiritual practice.

Even though the Christian paradise was vegan, I don't know many religious vegans. Out of the maybe fifty vegans I've met, only a small minority is religious. Maybe 10-20%. A lot of vegans (but not the majority, fortunately) have some esoteric views, they're often into alternative medicine and similar stuff, which is unfortunate because people might then be tempted to think that veganism is similar to that.

[YesNo]

Yeah, what I meant was that cockroaches die in ways that would be painful if they are sentient.

I assume that cockroaches as well as all the insect pests that we try to prevent from getting into our homes are sentient. They certainly act sentient when we try to step on them. Because of that I see no reason to deny they are sentient.

Perhaps, considering insects rather than plants is where a non-vegetarian could claim that vegetarians are "hypocrites". The vegetarian wants to avoid causing suffering to those cute animal species, like cows, pigs and chickens, that carnivores love to eat, but has no problem causing suffering to bugs like ants, cockroaches, mosquitoes and flies.

I haven't read Harris' essay, but I probably agree with most of it.
I don't think free will in the traditional sense exist. ... I like the compatibilist view Dennett presents in this paper: http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/...rbaerfinal.pdf

Harris claims that Dennett does not agree with him, but Dennett's position seems trivial to me. As you mention, he claims the following is true:

If we ever have it, free will is whatever it is that gives us moral responsibility.

I think most people would agree with that statement. What people want to know is whether he believes the "If we ever have it" part is true or not. Harris is courageous enough to say that we don't have it.

Given Harris' worldview, I think he comes to a correct conclusion. However, that does not mean that we are not free, but that there is something wrong with the worldview from which he is starting.

[Dodo25]

Perhaps, considering insects rather than plants is where a non-vegetarian could claim that vegetarians are "hypocrites". The vegetarian wants to avoid causing suffering to those cute animal species, like cows, pigs and chickens, that carnivores love to eat, but has no problem causing suffering to bugs like ants, cockroaches, mosquitoes and flies.

Yes, I think that can be a valid criticism for some veg*ans. But if the reason for not caring about insects is that people think they're not sentient, then that's not hypocricy. Instead, it would be a disagreement on a difficult empirical issue.

And most veg*ans do care about insect suffering if they think insects to be sentient, even though their real-life actions would then certainly lead to a lot of insect suffering (all the insects killed in agriculture, or when you drive a car, or when you let hot lights burn at night that attract stupid insects so they get grilled). Is that hypocricy? I don't think so, for reasons well explained in this short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O46T7GyE4Y

Harris claims that Dennett does not agree with him, but Dennett's position seems trivial to me.

I think Harris and Dennett differ on their definitions for free will and much less on the actual content of the discussion. I'm pretty sure that Dennett doesn't think people have the kind of free will Harris is talking about.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Sentient or not, I usually feel bad when I squash an ant or swat a fly.

[Nikhar]

humans - feel pain, show love and other emotions
animals - feel pain, show love and a lot of other emotions
and also humans are mammals, a subdivision in classification of animals

Exactly. That's a big part of the definition, eating one's own kind. At least to me. I don't get how eating cow or pig or chicken in any way comes close to cannabilism, because it just doesn't. That's why we have the word "cannibal" and the word "carnivore," each of which has different meanings.. Still, I consider myself an omnivore; I still eat plenty of non-meat things.

Only if the world lived on what dictionary meanings had to say. And how do you define 'one's own kind' anyways. Why don't you extend the definition to all mammals or contract it to say, men and women? Why does one kind have to mean humans? Because it's convenient?
Also, I guess you missed the analogy that I provided.

humans - feel pain, show love and other emotions
animals - feel pain, show love and a lot of other emotions
and also humans are mammals, a subdivision in classification of animals

What I am asking is if animals and humans both feel pain and are capable of showing all those emotions, how do you justify eating one of them and not others? Do you not eat them because you can? Because they're weak and helpless and probably because animals don't have laws forbidding you from eating them.

If your response is anything like, 'coz we are the dominant species and we can do what we like and other species are not as useful or important as we are' (an argument I have heard so many times), would you mind eating people who are permanently in vegetative state or who are in mental asylums without a hope of recovering? And anyways, if a person wouldn't mind eating humans as well along with other animals, I could understand it.


Don't get me wrong... I do not intend to question your eating habits. This is one question that I usually ask of non-vegetarians. Maybe there's a valid line of thinking that I am missing. It's a genuine query that I have. Once I get an answer that satisfies me, I'll stop asking the question.

How would I counter the argument that vegetarians are hypocrites?

I'd say this "no more than you or anyone else. We're all hypocrites -- you, me, that guy over there buying shoes, the kid on the play ground. . . all of us. So cheers to the brotherhood of hypocrisy! Now get the hell outa here!"

Haha.. But if we are hypocrites, why would we admit to being one? :P

Actually, I'm pretty ignorant about India. I did have that impression.

The only people from India that I can recall reading were Eknath Easwaran (who made a translation of the Bhagavad Gita that one can usually find in bookstores here) and Deepak Chopra who is also popular here. I didn't even know where Kerala was until I heard that Easwaran was from there and looked it up on a map. Indian food is excellent. At least, what I have had in the US.

It is excellent here in India too. Didn't you find it too spicy? :P

Dairy cows are impregnated each year, so that they give a large amount of milk. They don't just give the milk anyway, even if you feed them hormones, they need to be impregnated every year or year and a half. Many people aren't even aware of that, I was quite surprised when I found this out myself. And when the cows give birth, the calves are usually taken away, put in confinement (where they develop behavioral problems due to lack of space and social environment), and eventually they end up slaughtered for veal. The industries are interconnected, dairy supports veal, and vice-versa.
The milk cows are overbred, they give absurd amounts of milk. Even on the nice organic farms, 30% of the milk cows suffer from mastitis sometime in their life (chronic udder inflammation from all the milking). A dairy cow's natural life expectancy is 20 years, however, in milk production they end up exhausted after 4-5 years already. And then they're slaughtered like normal meat cows. They're transported in trucks, not a pleasant experience for the already exhausted cows. Sometimes these transports are half a dozen hours or longer. And then comes the slaughterhouse. As with meat cows, if even 1% of the killing bolt shots go wrong (some figures suggest it's much higher than that), a significant number of cows have their throats slit while conscious. Why risk it that this happens if there is a tasty, healthy alternative?

As I said, fortunately I come from place where the major population is Hindu and cows are treated with a lot of care and it's a big crime (a verrryyyyyy big one) to kill them. So, as long as I live here, I guess I don't have to worry about giving up dairy products (sine we don't use packaged dairy product anyways that we might have to worry about industrial misuse of animals).

And finally, regarding plants: First of all, I find it irritating how lots of people suddenly think they're experts on biology and philosophy of mind when it comes to plants. I keep hearing people say that they know plants are sentient, and when I ask them about philosophy of mind or simple stuff about evolution and biology, they have no clue. Why can't they just leave it to the actual experts instead of making absurd claims with a conviction that resembles religious faith? [/rant]
I've spent a lot of time researching philosophy of mind and animal nociception responses because I was curious whether fish, shrimps or insects can suffer (yes; likely yes; probably no but maybe). Plants are very, very, very unlikely to be sentient. Yes, I know they can "communicate" with each other, and I know they can show some interesting responses to chemicals, but seriously, it needs more than that for consciousness.
I think a lot of people worrying about plants don't even bother whether plants are sentient, they seem to think that killing is killing, whether it's killing sentient life or just vegetable-life. My ethical view is so much centered on avoiding suffering that I have a hard time even imagining that point of view. It irritates me that someone can seriously think putting animal suffering and killing (which can and should be viewed by everyone online in videos like "Earthlings") on the same level with destroying plants. Meat eaters like to joke "do you hear the carrots screaming", but would they say that while watching a documentary on factory farms? I'd bet that this would be too macabre even for those types of meat eaters who make jokes about vegetarians all the time.
Actually, I personally don't even mind killing animals if it were done painlessly. It's really the suffering I find wrong.

But enough of that, let's suppose for the sake of the argument that plants are in fact conscious. What would that mean? As OrphanPip already pointed out, it wouldn't make vegetarians or vegans hypocrites. Since an animal eats a lot of plants in its life and since the process is rather inefficient, a vegan "kills" much less plants than a meat eater. It takes 7-16 pounds of soy or crops to get one pound of beef, for instance!

This is what one of the people on my college mailing lists had to say in this regard. Since, I have no clue about the biology of plants, I did not have an asnwer.

As for your point of plants not feeling any pain because of the absence of an elaborate nervous system, I would like to ask you if you would consider it okay to kill a lobotomised animal for food because it can feel no pain ? I would like to present the following facts about plants:
3.1 When one tree is attacked by pests, it emits chemical signals to nieghbouring trees, encouraging them to produce chemical deterrents to that pest, ensuring their own safety.
3.2 the level of sophistication in this process is made all the more remarkable by the fact that the these ‘signals’ encourage production of substances tailored to specific pests!
3.3 An example of this would be the lima bean. When attacked by spider mites, the plant releases a chemical attractant for other types of mite, which prey on the attackers. Some plants help others, as in the case of cabbages, which release foul smelling isothiocyanates, discouraging aphids from attacking neighbouring plants like broad beans.
3.4 Research has also shown that plants actually ‘time’ the release of defensive chemicals, to correspond with the hours of the day when predators are most active
3.5 Sensitive to "touch" - Research has shown that in 17 different families of plant, over 1,000 varieties are very sensitive to touch – possibly an ancient inheritance from bacteria, which are known to be the ancestors of all plant life, responding to stimuli with minute electrical impulses.
3.6 The most amazing thing about plants is their ability to ‘see’. So sensitive to light are they that even the colour of their surroundings can affect their growth and taste!
The bottom-line is, plants are not as "without-feelings" as many of us believe. They are far more alive and so "see", "feel", "taste" things in their own way. In that case, cutting off fruits or taking out the whole plant does constitute an act of violence in my opinion and is morally as unacceptable to me as killing an animal.

Since this post is already way too long, one more thing to add: Some might say vegans are hypocrites because animal farming kills rodents and other small animals, and that these small creatures suffer from it. Well yeah, this does happen for sure. But since veganism is a more efficient way of food production, this tends to happen less than it happens for other diets. (There are some exceptions here but they're rare enough to be worth ignoring.) Besides, perfection is unattainable, it makes most sense to avoid what's practically avoidable and spend the rest of one's efforts on activism, instead of going into the woods alone living as a Jain. Some parts of my laptop were probably produced by child labor, and since humans are animals too, that definitely wouldn't be vegan. But sometimes I do stuff with my laptop that helps animals (including human animals) and I couldn't do that if I lived like an eremite without technology. My mantra, as a vegan, is that I prefer pragmatism to personal purity.

Yes, I guess thats the whole point aboit being a vegetarian by choice. It is that we wish to minimize suffering as much as we can. A lot of people here are vegetarian earlier on in their lives because it is forced upon them and they give it up as soon as they taste freedom.

Btw, Jains (not a majority of them anyways) don't live in the woods. They live in perfect houses and have excellent social lives.

I assume that cockroaches as well as all the insect pests that we try to prevent from getting into our homes are sentient. They certainly act sentient when we try to step on them. Because of that I see no reason to deny they are sentient.

Perhaps, considering insects rather than plants is where a non-vegetarian could claim that vegetarians are "hypocrites". The vegetarian wants to avoid causing suffering to those cute animal species, like cows, pigs and chickens, that carnivores love to eat, but has no problem causing suffering to bugs like ants, cockroaches, mosquitoes and flies.

But that would not be true for all vegetarians and vegans. I, for example, take extreme precaution wherever possible to not step on them and whenever I see a cockroach or some other insect writhing on its back, I make sure that I get them up on their legs again. I don't even kill mosquitoes. Though I remember this one time, it was my first night at hostel. I had let the windows open at night. It became impossible to sleep. Unfortunately I had to kill a few of them. I still regret it to the day. And it makes me wonder if I would not kill other animals if led to desperation. I wish to god that's not the case.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Only if the world lived on what dictionary meanings had to say. And how do you define 'one's own kind' anyways. Why don't you extend the definition to all mammals or contract it to say, men and women? Why does one kind have to mean humans? Because it's convenient?
Also, I guess you missed the analogy that I provided.

No, I saw it. I get what you're trying to say, but it doesn't work, because cannabilism is quite clearly defined. It's not really a word with an arguable definition. Cannabilism means eating one of one's own species, not one of "its own kind." Cow, bird, pig, and fish are not the same species. Actually, the first definition that comes up when one looks up cannibalism goes along the lines of "a human that eats the flesh of another human." Suggesting eating an animal in any way equals, or resembles, cannibalism is just a weak attempt at a sensationalist argument. One can easily argue that eating meat is immoral, inhumane, even barbaric. But cannibalistic? No.

I eat meat because it tastes really good.

[OrphanPip]

Those points about plants are silly though, reacting to external stimuli is not evidence of sentience. No one would dispute that plants are highly evolved and complex organisms, they've been evolving for just as long as any other living things. That doesn't mean they feel, in the sense of pain/desire, or that they think. Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence to support it. As is all those examples are easily explainable as mechanistic traits that were propagated through natural selection.

Also, one should clarify what ethical argument one is actually trying to use. If it is wrong to kill an already lobotomized animal, then it must be because there is something intrinsically valuable in the animal's life. In which case, it would be irrelevant to argue that the plants feel, because one is already assuming life has intrinsic value.

I don't see why it would be wrong to put down an animal that has no brain function (they couldn't live at that point anyway). The question of whether it is right or wrong to give the animal a lobotomy in the first place is a completely different ethical question. Yet, something which does not feel, and is not aware of its surroundings, is not really harmed unless you think the mechanistic continuation of life has intrinsic good.

[Pierre Menard]

What I am asking is if animals and humans both feel pain and are capable of showing all those emotions, how do you justify eating one of them and not others? Do you not eat them because you can? Because they're weak and helpless and probably because animals don't have laws forbidding you from eating them.

You make it sound like meat-eaters have to justify it. I mean, I certainly don't have to justify it to the animals, I highly doubt they'd comprehend any justification and I don't have to justify it to vegetarians/vegans; who are they to me and why would I have justify anything to them?

[Alexander III]

Only if the world lived on what dictionary meanings had to say. And how do you define 'one's own kind' anyways. Why don't you extend the definition to all mammals or contract it to say, men and women? Why does one kind have to mean humans? Because it's convenient?
Also, I guess you missed the analogy that I provided.

Basically, Cannibalism means eating ones own species, not species similar to ones own, or species somewhat like one's own, but eating ones own species. Much like patricide means killing ones own father, not a man who looks like your father, nor even you uncle, for it to be patricide it must be your father.

Now Father is easier to define than species, but in essence with my limited biological erudition, I can deduce that two creatures are of the same species if they can do the bing-boom-bang, and as a result of said action produce children. Or to create a simple guideline, if society say's it's ok to **** it, it's not okay to eat it; if society say's its ok to eat it, it is not ok to **** it.

Sure there are exceptions to the guideline, but on the whole when in doubt, the guideline is always useful to clarify said doubt.

What I am asking is if animals and humans both feel pain and are capable of showing all those emotions, how do you justify eating one of them and not others? Do you not eat them because you can? Because they're weak and helpless and probably because animals don't have laws forbidding you from eating them.

1) If what you are saying is that you are unable to recognize any real or major difference between a man eating a chicken thigh or another man eating a human thigh...well I have some bad news for you.

2) Besides men are animals, we need no more justify eating the cow than the lion needs to justify eating the Zebra. As a race our Morality is far more similar to that of Nature than any idealized notion of morality. Sure it could be argued that there have been outstanding individuals. But the majority of humanity has throughout history been on a very basic moral level; and herein lies The Earl of Rochester's delightful paradox, If you acknowledge that human morality is highly evolved based on examinations of individuals rather than the majority of humanity, you must concede that "man differs more from man, than man from beast"

3) I am not trying to say that vegetarianism is bad, it is in fact a morally just and good practice. And I applaud individuals who can do it. But to expect the same level of moral standards by all humanity is like expecting a cow to start talking.

If you will excuse a small digression on my part, I trust that this story will be found entertaining and rewarding in equal measure as it helps further illustrate what I am trying to say.

I take you to 1825, to the decadent and corrupt papal States, to the center of corruption, to wit, Rome. The carbonari were a famous revolutionary group who were attempting to end the tyranny of the church and create a Roman Republic by the people and for the people, to end the oppression of the clergy and give basic human rights to the citizens, to the people. It was a revolutionary group like many of that time, fighting and dying for Liberty and Justice. Two members of the Carbonari, Angelo Targhini and Leonida Montanari (both wellborn and of good families), at the age of 25 were captured, charged with treason for conspiring against the pope, and sentenced to be guillotined, They did not cry nor did they regret their fate; the opposite in fact was true, they were content to die on the Guillotine, for they knew that their deaths would galvanize the people of Rome to throw off their shackles and fight for their freedom. The day before their execution, there suddenly was a huge riot amongst the polis who had come to see the execution, gunshots were in the air and they broke into Castel Sant'Angelo were the two revolutionaries were being kept. The two youths were convinced that the people of Rome had finally risen to overthrow their tyrants and claim their republic. Unfortunately the truth was different. The Polis did in fact storm the prison to Liberate the two prisoners, but liberating them only so that they could be taken to the guillotine at once and the show man finally commence. For the Polis had come form all over the Roman country side to enjoy the spectacle of a fine execution, and they came leaving their farms and trades for a few days. However, the execution did not occur when planned for the Convicts would not repent their sins before God and make peace with him, the continued to renounce God and not repent their actions, and thus the clergy was delaying the execution as they detested executing men whom had not repented as it would mean their souls would be damned to hell. The great people of Rome form whom these two 25 year olds had sacrificed their lives, needed to return to their trades and farms and cared far less about the spiritual safety of these mens souls, than about having a good show and going back home. The morning after, on the 23d of November, the great riot of the people of Rome, the two carbonaris were executed. They died stoically like honorable men, both of them smiling, content to die for Liberty. The People of Rome applauded and enjoyed their shows and finally returned to their farms and trades.

Haha.. But if we are hypocrites, why would we admit to being one? :P

Is that not exactly why we are all hypocrites, because none of us would understand why another would admit it.

As I said, fortunately I come from place where the major population is Hindu and cows are treated with a lot of care and it's a big crime (a verrryyyyyy big one) to kill them. So, as long as I live here, I guess I don't have to worry about giving up dairy products (sine we don't use packaged dairy product anyways that we might have to worry about industrial misuse of animals)

.

I suppose being born a cow in India, or a Pig in Isreal or a Muslim nation is like winning the lottery of life for an animal. And being born a cow or pig in America is the worst outcome, like being born a human in africa.




I suppose the point I am trying to make in all of this, is that one should always try to do what is just and honorable, and being a vegetarian is in most ways just and honorable, but expecting the majority of people to understand let alone appreciate what and why one does what he thinks is just; is naive.

[Dodo25]

This is what one of the people on my college mailing lists had to say in this regard. Since, I have no clue about the biology of plants, I did not have an asnwer.

Some robots can do these things too, even with the current level of technology. Is it wrong to turn them off? Just because something can do fancy stuff doesn't mean it's sentient.

Btw, Jains (not a majority of them anyways) don't live in the woods. They live in perfect houses and have excellent social lives.

Ha, sorry about that! My point with the woods was that, if you live in normal houses, the building of it, and the infrastructure to keep it in shape, leads to insect deaths and mutilation. I'm not criticizing Jains for that, I think it's silly to expect perfection and I do admire the great lengths they go to not cause harm to any living creature. While I find that admirable, I don't fully agree with their ethics. I think they place too much weight on not personally killing, and too little on activism and donations, which could reduce the overall amount of animals harmed by much more than one's personal actions.

You make it sound like meat-eaters have to justify it. I mean, I certainly don't have to justify it to the animals, I highly doubt they'd comprehend any justification and I don't have to justify it to vegetarians/vegans; who are they to me and why would I have justify anything to them?

No you're not obliged to justify it publically. But insert "slave owners" for "meat-eaters" and "abolitionists" for "vegetarians/vegans", and ask yourself whether you'd still agree with the sentiment in the above post. And before anyone gets upset that I compare eating animals to slavery, please look up the meaning of "comparison" or "analogy". It's not the same as equivocation. (Having said that, I don't think the difference is all that big.)

1) If what you are saying is that you are unable to recognize any real or major difference between a man eating a chicken thigh or another man eating a human thigh...well I have some bad news for you.

How about eating a newborn infant, or a late-stage Alzheimer patient? Assuming no family members are sad because of their deaths, and the rest of society will not hear about the incident and get upset; is there any intrinsic reason why it's worse to eat them instead of a chicken? Chickens have around the same level of awareness as human newborns, or late-stage Alzheimer patients. Why treat them differently? Just because they look differently, or because they have the "wrong" DNA? Isn't that just as bad as a racist who thinks all the other "races" are "wrong"?

2) Besides men are animals, we need no more justify eating the cow than the lion needs to justify eating the Zebra. As a race our Morality is far more similar to that of Nature than any idealized notion of morality. Sure it could be argued that there have been outstanding individuals. But the majority of humanity has throughout history been on a very basic moral level; and herein lies The Earl of Rochester's delightful paradox, If you acknowledge that human morality is highly evolved based on examinations of individuals rather than the majority of humanity, you must concede that "man differs more from man, than man from beast"

And do men also need no more justifcation to rape women than chimps need to rape chimp females?

I don't deny that adult humans differ from nonhuman animals in remarkable ways. But what about marginal case humans? How are we to treat them? Like we treat animals currently? That would be horrible!

3) I am not trying to say that vegetarianism is bad, it is in fact a morally just and good practice. And I applaud individuals who can do it. But to expect the same level of moral standards by all humanity is like expecting a cow to start talking.

Sure, that's why we need things like cultured meat to encourage a global transition. Cultured meat will be cheaper, healthier, better for the environment, and most importantly: produced without suffering.

[Nikhar]

No, I saw it. I get what you're trying to say, but it doesn't work, because cannabilism is quite clearly defined. It's not really a word with an arguable definition. Cannabilism means eating one of one's own species, not one of "its own kind." Cow, bird, pig, and fish are not the same species. Actually, the first definition that comes up when one looks up cannibalism goes along the lines of "a human that eats the flesh of another human." Suggesting eating an animal in any way equals, or resembles, cannibalism is just a weak attempt at a sensationalist argument. One can easily argue that eating meat is immoral, inhumane, even barbaric. But cannibalistic? No.

I eat meat because it tastes really good.

Okay I get what you mean. I'll rephrase my question. Would you mind eating humans if need arises? If yes, why? If no, I understand.

Those points about plants are silly though, reacting to external stimuli is not evidence of sentience. No one would dispute that plants are highly evolved and complex organisms, they've been evolving for just as long as any other living things. That doesn't mean they feel, in the sense of pain/desire, or that they think. Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence to support it. As is all those examples are easily explainable as mechanistic traits that were propagated through natural selection.

Do we then have evidence that plants are not sentient? Is lack of nervous system a sufficient evidence? Is sentience not possible by means other than the nervous system as we know it. (Pardon me if my questions sound outright silly. I only studied biology till 10th standard :P)

You make it sound like meat-eaters have to justify it. I mean, I certainly don't have to justify it to the animals, I highly doubt they'd comprehend any justification and I don't have to justify it to vegetarians/vegans; who are they to me and why would I have justify anything to them?

I guess you missed the statement I made later on. I'll quote it again.

Don't get me wrong... I do not intend to question your eating habits. This is one question that I usually ask of non-vegetarians. Maybe there's a valid line of thinking that I am missing. It's a genuine query that I have. Once I get an answer that satisfies me, I'll stop asking the question.

I do not intend to question your morals or ethics. In fact, you missed my question altogether. To put it in simpler, non-offensive words, I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier in the post.

Would you mind eating humans if need arises? If yes, why? If no, I understand.

1) If what you are saying is that you are unable to recognize any real or major difference between a man eating a chicken thigh or another man eating a human thigh...well I have some bad news for you.

Well, actually I am unable to understand the difference. As I have already stated so many times, humans and animals alike feel pain and show a lot of other emotions, what according to you is different? Enlighten me.

2) Besides men are animals, we need no more justify eating the cow than the lion needs to justify eating the Zebra. As a race our Morality is far more similar to that of Nature than any idealized notion of morality. Sure it could be argued that there have been outstanding individuals. But the majority of humanity has throughout history been on a very basic moral level; and herein lies The Earl of Rochester's delightful paradox, If you acknowledge that human morality is highly evolved based on examinations of individuals rather than the majority of humanity, you must concede that "man differs more from man, than man from beast"

3) I am not trying to say that vegetarianism is bad, it is in fact a morally just and good practice. And I applaud individuals who can do it. But to expect the same level of moral standards by all humanity is like expecting a cow to start talking.

Maybe I used the wrong words since everybody seems to understand that I am questioning non-vegetarians' morality. All I had asked was why is cannibalism the most heinous of crimes whereas non-vegetarianism is just fine. And as possible answers to this question, I had put forth the arguments like animals being weak and all.
I also said that maybe I am missing the very obvious answer to the question.
No one has ever given me a satisfactory answer and that's why I continue to ask the question.

If you will excuse a small digression on my part, I trust that this story will be found entertaining and rewarding in equal measure as it helps further illustrate what I am trying to say.

I take you to 1825, to the decadent and corrupt papal States, to the center of corruption, to wit, Rome. The carbonari were a famous revolutionary group who were attempting to end the tyranny of the church and create a Roman Republic by the people and for the people, to end the oppression of the clergy and give basic human rights to the citizens, to the people. It was a revolutionary group like many of that time, fighting and dying for Liberty and Justice. Two members of the Carbonari, Angelo Targhini and Leonida Montanari (both wellborn and of good families), at the age of 25 were captured, charged with treason for conspiring against the pope, and sentenced to be guillotined, They did not cry nor did they regret their fate; the opposite in fact was true, they were content to die on the Guillotine, for they knew that their deaths would galvanize the people of Rome to throw off their shackles and fight for their freedom. The day before their execution, there suddenly was a huge riot amongst the polis who had come to see the execution, gunshots were in the air and they broke into Castel Sant'Angelo were the two revolutionaries were being kept. The two youths were convinced that the people of Rome had finally risen to overthrow their tyrants and claim their republic. Unfortunately the truth was different. The Polis did in fact storm the prison to Liberate the two prisoners, but liberating them only so that they could be taken to the guillotine at once and the show man finally commence. For the Polis had come form all over the Roman country side to enjoy the spectacle of a fine execution, and they came leaving their farms and trades for a few days. However, the execution did not occur when planned for the Convicts would not repent their sins before God and make peace with him, the continued to renounce God and not repent their actions, and thus the clergy was delaying the execution as they detested executing men whom had not repented as it would mean their souls would be damned to hell. The great people of Rome form whom these two 25 year olds had sacrificed their lives, needed to return to their trades and farms and cared far less about the spiritual safety of these mens souls, than about having a good show and going back home. The morning after, on the 23d of November, the great riot of the people of Rome, the two carbonaris were executed. They died stoically like honorable men, both of them smiling, content to die for Liberty. The People of Rome applauded and enjoyed their shows and finally returned to their farms and trades.

I suppose the point I am trying to make in all of this, is that one should always try to do what is just and honorable, and being a vegetarian is in most ways just and honorable, but expecting the majority of people to understand let alone appreciate what and why one does what he thinks is just; is naive.

I see the point that you made there. And no, I don't intend to turn the complete world vegetarian. Even if I did, I wouldn't be able to.

The purpose of this whole thread was not to challenge non-vegetarians' eating habits. The initial query was 'Are vegetarians hypocrites?' to which I have had a few very satisfactory answers. Then the thread turned into 'non vegetarianism and cannibalism' which was my fault since apparently I phrased my query in a wrong manner. But through umpteen repetitions throughout the post, I guess I have made my query clear.

[YesNo]

... reacting to external stimuli is not evidence of sentience.

I would think that seeing a plant or insect respond to external stimuli IS evidence of sentience.

If one doesn't like that evidence because one wants to feel it is OK to eat them or kill them, then one would have to define "sentience" in such a way that it excludes plants or insects and add a theory that dismisses the contrary evidence of their response to external stimuli. One would then claim that the experience we have of them is only an illusion that plants and insects are sentient.

After reading Harris' Free Will, he does the same thing for humans. He claims that we only have the illusion of free will. Forget any experience you might have to the contrary. It would be, by his theory, an illusion.

If Harris follows Blackmore, there would be some set of selfish, unconscious, mindless meme-replicants that are stimulating the brain to generate our illusions. This is a short step from saying that humans aren't even sentient. Any experience of free will, suffering or joy is an illusion which can be ignored.

So I guess we can eat anything. Suffering is just an illusion.