Vegetarianism

[Dodo25]

Suffering is the epitome of bad according to you. I've already said that suffering is natural and therefore not bad and not good. It just is. [...] And I also agree we should try to minimize the suffering we cause to animals we are responsible for. But simply saying we shouldn't tolerate suffering because we have the means to change it is absurd. I'm very much against the argument that it's good to do something, just because we can do it.


[my emphasis]
Everything is, on some level, 'natural'. By that reasoning, you imply that nothing is good or bad. We might as well do whatever we want. Might as well torture people and animals. And then suddenly, you say we SHOULD minimize suffering, but only the suffering we cause? How does that make sense? If we walk by an animal in deep agony, and if we had the means to relieve it of the suffering, there'd be no reason to do it? Either suffering is bad, or it isn't. If you say it's only bad when it's 'unnatural', you need to provide a reason why nature is so good. If i.e. you believed in God and that he had some greater plan with nature, I suppose I'd understand your line of thought, but without it, it seems totally arbitrary.


Actually, there are differences between men and women.

Well, d'uh! However, there are no differences regarding intelligence (except spatial 3D imagination and maybe verbal intelligence, both quite irrelevant to one's ability to vote in politics).



To a great extent? Or to some extent?

Humans can suffer in ways cows can't. Yet both species suffer the same kind of pain when they're physically hurt. Both suffer anxiety when transported against their will in small, confined, dark spaces. Both suffer when they see their kind being cruelly killed in front of their eyes. The suffering of a cow cannot outweigh the mild benefits it gives human beings to eat steak instead of vegan.



Anyway, speciesism is discrimination or prejudice based on species or assigning different values to beings on the same basis. Plants are a species and so are insects. You assign a certain set of values to one species (vertebrate species) based on their common characteristics and you a assign a completely different set of values to another species (plants, for example).
You rationalise your speciesism by introducing suffering, which is another question. Your statement certainly was speciesist and it shows why speciesism is a flawed concept.

If I'm right and suffering is bad, then that's not speciesist. If suffering is just something arbitrary that doesn't matter for ethics, then you're right and I'm speciesist. Some people try to justify that human interests are more valuable than animal interests because humans are more intelligent. By that reasoning, Einstein could have eaten stupid people! Obviously using intelligence as a criterion is arbitrary. Suffering, however, is not.



Actually, I put homo sapiens and all other creatures on the same level. You hold homo sapiens above all other animals.

You don't even have a level. You just let nature do whatever nature does. You don't qualify for an ethical discussion if that's your view (unless you somehow justify it).

[Propter W.]

[my emphasis]
Everything is, on some level, 'natural'. By that reasoning, you imply that nothing is good or bad. We might as well do whatever we want. Might as well torture people and animals.
Quite right. We might as well.

And then suddenly, you say we SHOULD minimize suffering, but only the suffering we cause?Suddenly?

How does that make sense?It makes perfect sense to me.

If we walk by an animal in deep agony, and if we had the means to relieve it of the suffering, there'd be no reason to do it?
Sure, you can scare away the predator that's the cause of its suffering and treat the injured animal. But sadly, the predator will then suffer and die.

Either suffering is bad, or it isn't.Black or white?

If you say it's only bad when it's 'unnatural', you need to provide a reason why nature is so good.Suffering is not intrinsically bad, even when it's unnatural. I do believe nature creates a balance. We should respect and accept it. Not disturb it and create and artificial balance, which is the case when we stuff cows with maize and soya but is also the case when we start to intervene in wildlife by, for instance, relieving an animal of its suffering.

Humans can suffer in ways cows can't. Yet both species suffer the same kind of pain when they're physically hurt. Both suffer anxiety when transported against their will in small, confined, dark spaces. Both suffer when they see their kind being cruelly killed in front of their eyes. The suffering of a cow cannot outweigh the mild benefits it gives human beings to eat steak instead of vegan.
That's no way to treat cattle. It's also not an argument why everyone should turn veggie. Again, your black and white thinking hinders you from seeing other options.

If I'm right and suffering is bad, then that's not speciesist. If suffering is just something arbitrary that doesn't matter for ethics, then you're right and I'm speciesist. Give me your definition of speciesism. It seems it's a very personal one, one that doesn't correspond to any definition I've found on the internet.

Some people try to justify that human interests are more valuable than animal interests because humans are more intelligent.
Human interests are more valuable than animal interests to humans, just like lion interests are more valuable than human interests to lions and spider interests are more valuable than lion interests to spiders.

You don't even have a level. You just let nature do whatever nature does.You mean I don't have a god complex? Correct.

You don't qualify for an ethical discussion if that's your view (unless you somehow justify it).
I don't? Thanks for informing me.

[Dodo25]

Suffering is not intrinsically bad, even when it's unnatural. I do believe nature creates a balance. We should respect and accept it. Not disturb it and create and artificial balance, which is the case when we stuff cows with maize and soya but is also the case when we start to intervene in wildlife by, for instance, relieving an animal of its suffering.


"I do believe nature creates a balance. We should respect and accept it."

Have you by any chance read Lovelock's Gaia books? It certainly sounds like you have. The thing is, all this 'balance' talk is nonsense. Things aren't the best way they could be, even if we correct the mess humans have done (at least we agree that that's a bad thing).



Give me your definition of speciesism. It seems it's a very personal one, one that doesn't correspond to any definition I've found on the internet.


Speciesism:= Discrimination based solely on the species an organism belongs to.

If I point out that humans are self-aware and have a conscious interest to live on, including future plans, while cows don't have this, I'm not being speciesist because I consider an actual relevant difference instead of an arbitary belief that each member of Homo sapiens deserves more consideration than everything else.



Human interests are more valuable than animal interests to humans, just like lion interests are more valuable than human interests to lions and spider interests are more valuable than lion interests to spiders.


Tautology, but that's exactly the point. The point of ethics is to recognize that the ground you're standing on isn't special. To others, their interests are just as real as yours. Accepting that premise, we turn to ethics and try to figure out how to act best. All interests shall be considered equally. An interest 'not to suffer agony' is worth more than the interest 'to have steak rather than vegan food for dinner', because even meat-lovers wouldn't undergo torture in order to turn a vegan dinner into meat.

[Propter W.]

Have you by any chance read Lovelock's Gaia books? It certainly sounds like you have. The thing is, all this 'balance' talk is nonsense. Things aren't the best way they could be, even if we correct the mess humans have done (at least we agree that that's a bad thing).

Nope, never even heard of the man (or woman). Why is it nonsense?


Speciesism:= Discrimination based solely on the species an organism belongs to.

So your statement was speciesist after all?


If I point out that humans are self-aware and have a conscious interest to live on, including future plans, while cows don't have this, I'm not being speciesist because I consider an actual relevant difference instead of an arbitary belief that each member of Homo sapiens deserves more consideration than everything else.

I think you have it backwards. You put humans above everything else. Not me.


Tautology, but that's exactly the point.Huh?


The point of ethics is to recognize that the ground you're standing on isn't special.Literally or what? You've lost me.


To others, their interests are just as real as yours.Exactly, that's what I said. The lion's interest is just as real as the spider's.


Accepting that premise, we turn to ethics and try to figure out how to act best. All interests shall be considered equally. Yes, I'm with you again....


An interest 'not to suffer agony' is worth more than the interest 'to have steak rather than vegan food for dinner', because even meat-lovers wouldn't undergo torture in order to turn a vegan dinner into meat.

Wait. I thought all interests were considered equally? You've lost me again.

[Dodo25]

We've reached the point were further arguing is pointless. It all stands there, read it again, or let it be, I don't have an infinite amount of time. Thanks for the part of the discussion that was productive. Your last two posts were not.

[Propter W.]

We've reached the point were further arguing is pointless. It all stands there, read it again, or let it be, I don't have an infinite amount of time. Thanks for the part of the discussion that was productive. Your last two posts were not.

Very well, if you say so. You're welcome and thank you too.

[prickly_pete]

Honestly I think vegetarianism attracts alot of quacks and people who just have trouble dealing with reality and how much violent death there actually is in nature.

[Paulclem]

Honestly I think vegetarianism attracts alot of quacks and people who just have trouble dealing with reality and how much violent death there actually is in nature.

Isn't it because of the red in tooth and claw, slaughter of the seas reality of nature that some vegetarians don't want to add to it?

As humans living in a highly developed and relatively wealthy societies, we can make a choice, where some may not be able to.

[Dodo25]

Honestly I think vegetarianism attracts alot of quacks and people who just have trouble dealing with reality and how much violent death there actually is in nature.

Possibly, some vegetarians might have 'weird' reasons. However, this doesn't negate the fact that compelling reasons for it do exist.

Cows or pigs have the same level of awareness as human infants or Alzheimer patients in the late stages of the disease. Do we value beings the latter more than the former simply because the 'look different'? That's committing the same mistake racists or sexists make. All the suffering inflicted on the animals by the meat and diary industry doesn't save a single life. Our human preferences for 'tasty meat' are not strong enough (meaning if we don't eat it we don't suffer enough) to justify the suffering of animals.

And what is it with this 'nature is cruel, so why shouldn't we be cruel too' argument?? YES, nature is cruel, because evolution is an indifferent, blind process that only 'cared' about the spreading of the genes. But that doesn't mean WE have to be cruel too! We have socialism, welfare, medicine for the sick, contraception; each of these are very 'unnatural', but prevent suffering.

[prickly_pete]

Are you talking about preventing suffering - which is reasonable enough? Or are you talking about not eating animals at all?

[Dodo25]

Are you talking about preventing suffering - which is reasonable enough? Or are you talking about not eating animals at all?

I'm 'just' talking about suffering. I don't think killing non-self aware animals (and the only ones which are self-aware are humans and possibly some of the other great apes) is wrong, IF it's done painlessly.

So if it were guaranteed that an animal had been cared for to the best of our abilities (well, reasonably that is, animals don't need jacuzzis of course) so it didn't suffer, then I would eat it. I LOVE meat. I stopped eating it for ethical reasons.

The problem is that even in 'animal-friendly' meat or milk production, the beings suffer terribly. Chronic udder inflammation in milk cows, which are overbred to begin with so their life expectancy is shortened to a fraction of a normal cow's life expectancy due to stress. In order for the cows to give enough milk, they have to be impregnated several times a year (and obviously they can't keep the young, which suffer because they don't get enough milk, and not in the right way). Eventually, the calves are slaughtered, and if you've ever watched videos from slaughterhouses, it's obvious that it's NOT done painlessly (and don't forget the scary and often long-distance transport, and the moments of agonizing fear before the death blow). It would cost too much. Or take chickens, their beaks are cut (there are nerves in there) to prevent canibalism, but it happens anyway when they're close together. The dense, warm conditions of farm houses are a herd for disease and infections. There's suffering even in animal friendly farms that actually make profit.

The only way to really get meat without suffering is when you only feed like one family and maybe some friends of the house with it, there's pretty much no way to actually make profit out of it.

Also, there are compelling ecological reasons to eat vegan (as best as one can): Meat production is highly inefficient, it takes 7'500 litres of water and 11 pounds of soya or other crops to get one pound of meat, on average. Additionally, the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all of global traffic(!).

And meat happens to be quite unhealthy. I don't care much about that though, I eat sweets all the time too.

By the way, scientists are working on in-vitro meat that could be produced without there having to be an actually sentient animal. If people stopped having an aversion to something 'unnatural', they could just eat that meat instead. Without suffering, it's ethically correct to eat whatever you deem tasty.

[prickly_pete]

OK, that I don't have a problem with. But saying we shouldn't kill animals at all because it's 'biased' in the same way Nazism was biased - as many vegans do - is downright balmy in my personal opinion.

There are ethical reasons to prevent suffering though, obviously.

[Dodo25]

Well, in a way the Nazi comparison is accurate. People seem to think that the suffering doesn't really matter because animals are just 'animals'. In the same way, the Nazis thought the Jews weren't morally relevant.

I do however dislike the term 'mass killing' when it comes to vegans comparing meat production with the holocaust. I really agree, there's a big difference between killing (self-aware) humans and killing (non-self aware but sentient) animals.

I think many vegans are being counterproductive, they antagonize people with stupid arguments and radical views. I just saw some animal rights guy calling the philosopher Peter Singer a speciesist because he said it would be justified to experiment on 100 chimpanzees if it saves the lives of ten thousands of humans. Ironically, it was Singer who made the term 'speciesism' popular in the first place.

But again, merely because some vegans use bad arguments doesn't make the existing good arguments invalid.

[prickly_pete]

Well, in a way the Nazi comparison is accurate

See even if I wanted to get involved with folks like you because of some shared ethical principle I could NEVER go through with it because of hair-brained thoughts like those above.

Like I said, vegetarianism attracts alot of quacks.

[Dodo25]

See even if I wanted to get involved with folks like you because of some shared ethical principle I could NEVER go through with it because of hair-brained thoughts like those above.

Like I said, vegetarianism attracts alot of quacks.

You recognize I qualified it by saying 'in a way'?

Genocides have been committed often. What made the holocaust unique was its large scale, how systematically it had been done, and how little the population in general cared.

See any parallels to the meat industry? Do the words large-scale, systematically, and little caring ring a bell? Thousands of animals are painfully(!) killed by humans every second. Is there an outcry? No, the world happily participates in it by eating the dead bodies.

I didn't say the comparison was apt in every regard. This doesn't have to be the case for an analogy.

[G L Wilson]

I feel like eating a steak.

[Paulclem]

You recognize I qualified it by saying 'in a way'?

Genocides have been committed often. What made the holocaust unique was its large scale, how systematically it had been done, and how little the population in general cared.

See any parallels to the meat industry? Do the words large-scale, systematically, and little caring ring a bell? Thousands of animals are painfully(!) killed by humans every second. Is there an outcry? No, the world happily participates in it by eating the dead bodies.

I didn't say the comparison was apt in every regard. This doesn't have to be the case for an analogy.

Your argument merely serves to polarise the issue, and will not persuade anyone from eating meat. There are many reasons why people eat meat - culture, habit, health, tradition, taste, economics etc. Equating the process to nazism does no-one any favours. At the end of the day, you can't stuff vegetarianism down people's throats. They tend to resist more, as Prickly demonstrates. I suspect if you were talking to someone in the real, you'd get the same reaction. There's no point to it because ulttimately you get vegetarianism a bad name without helping any animal - or, in my view, any human who might consider it.

[Dodo25]

Your argument merely serves to polarise the issue, and will not persuade anyone from eating meat. There are many reasons why people eat meat - culture, habit, health, tradition, taste, economics etc. Equating the process to nazism does no-one any favours. At the end of the day, you can't stuff vegetarianism down people's throats. They tend to resist more, as Prickly demonstrates. I suspect if you were talking to someone in the real, you'd get the same reaction. There's no point to it because ulttimately you get vegetarianism a bad name without helping any animal - or, in my view, any human who might consider it.

If you read the posts again, you'll see that it wasn't me who brought up Nazism. I don't think Nazi-comparisons are arguments either. But since it was brought up argued there was no comparison, I pointed out that there actually are parallels. Nothing more, nothing less. Let's drop the issue and focus on the actual arguments.

@Wilson, enjoy it! It's less unethical if at least some being is happy (: But it doesn't hurt to actually think about the arguments and consider one's position..

[G L Wilson]

If eating plants only was completely rational, I would consider a vegan diet. At present, it seems largely irrational.

[Dodo25]

If eating plants only was completely rational, I would consider a vegan diet. At present, it seems largely irrational.

I don't see anything 'irrational' about not eating animal products. Go back a couple of pages and read this thread if you're interested in all the arguments. Veganism is much healthier than eating meat (even little), and definitely not less healthy than vegetarianism. You just have to plan what you eat in order to avoid deficiencies, but it isn't that hard. And you could always take vitamin pills. Some people seem to have an aversion against pills, THAT would be irrational. But as I said, it's possible to get every important vitamin and nutritient without pills, you just have to inform yourself.

But why not start with little steps? If 100 meat eaters would reduce their meat consumption to a fourth, the end result is as if 75 of them became vegetarians! One should do what's realistic, and if it works, then do more.

[G L Wilson]

Tabu is a dirty word to me. However, reason figures in a loss of sense. The world is in crisis. And I am too fat and vulgar. I am also lazy.

[Dodo25]

Tabu is a dirty word to me. However, reason figures in a loss of sense. The world is in crisis. And I am too fat and vulgar. I am also lazy.

I don't get where you get the term 'tabu' from.

[G L Wilson]

I don't get where you get the term 'tabu' from.

"Taboo (also written Tabu and Tapu) is the name given to a system of religious prohibitions which attained its fullest development in Polynesia (from Hawaii to New Zealand), but of which under different names traces may be discovered in most parts of the world."

[Dodo25]

"Taboo (also written Tabu and Tapu) is the name given to a system of religious prohibitions which attained its fullest development in Polynesia (from Hawaii to New Zealand), but of which under different names traces may be discovered in most parts of the world."

(Yes, but as far as I remember, no one was talking about it being a taboo. The argument was that there are sound ethical reasons against eating animal products, so it would be great if people ate less of it.)

[G L Wilson]

(Yes, but as far as I remember, no one was talking about it being a taboo. The argument was that there are sound ethical reasons against eating animal products, so it would be great if people ate less of it.)

No-one ever gives a thought to the feelings of a bean or sprout.

[Dodo25]

No-one ever gives a thought to the feelings of a bean or sprout.

They don't appear to have feelings. But if you're concerned, why don't you found an organization for the ethical treatment of plants? Why are you implying that if it were true that plants had feelings, it would somehow be more justified to let animals suffer? That's somewhat like saying "stones may have feelings, so let's beat the crap out of the next person we see".

Even if -- what an absurdity -- plants had feelings, it would still be most compassionate to be vegan. It takes 7-16 pounds of soy or crops to produce a pound of meat. So you'd be harming a lot less plants.

[Delta40]

I'm amazed at how defensive meat eaters get when somebody says they are vegetarian or vegan. There is a demand for the person to justify their decision. I'm not sure why but alot of meat eaters seem to take vegetarianism as a tacit attack on their choice to eat meat! Ridiculous really. I love a juicy kangaroo steak in pepper sauce and nobody ever asks me to account for my dietary decision! My daughter is vegetarian and my family make jokes at her, tell her she'll grow out of it or suggest she's just being 'political' and if she isn't careful, she could get very sick - all while they consume alcohol in excess! ha ha.

[G L Wilson]

Feed the man meat. Feed the women and children pap, I say.

[cl154576]

Animals eat other animals. Should we force them to convert?

[Dodo25]

I'm amazed at how defensive meat eaters get when somebody says they are vegetarian or vegan. There is a demand for the person to justify their decision. I'm not sure why but alot of meat eaters seem to take vegetarianism as a tacit attack on their choice to eat meat! Ridiculous really.

Well, I for one understand that reaction, though it's indeed interesting that the reaction often comes before the person is even asked about her reasons. Some people become vegetarians / vegans for health or lifestyle reasons, yet many do it for ethical reasons. And that implies that these people find it unethical to eat meat themselves. So it's not a huge step to conclude that they'd rather not have others eating meat. I know that some things are just 'private matters', but I don't think eating habits necessarily fall into that category -- at least not if sentient beings get hurt in the process.


Animals eat other animals. Should we force them to convert?

For one thing, we have a choice, they don't. So the question about what we should do ourselves seems easy to answer. It doesn't make an action less harmful to the affected individual if there is a large number of individuals suffering from similar actions. Unnecessary suffering is bad.

But what about predators? There's a huge amount of suffering in the world. Richard Dawkins put it like this:

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so."

Must it really be so? Why accept what evolution has created, if there is so much suffering? We intervene in nature all the time anyway, we expand, extinguish, deforest, pollute... So if we intervene unreflecedly and destructively anyway, what would speak about conscious interventions guided by compassion? I for one think it would be good thing to change ecosystems so that there's less suffering. The problem though is that things are incredibly complex. As of now, we have hardly any understanding of how ecosystems work, so we'd just mess up the whole thing and then we're all in trouble. So there are huge technical concerns, but in theory, if it really were feasible, I'd think redesigning ecosystems would be an important ethical issue and we should do it.

[G L Wilson]

And the lion will lie down with the lamb. Amen.

[Varenne Rodin]

I've been a vegetarian for many years and I am very healthy. I'm healthier than all of the meat eaters I know. I cook all of my own meals. Most people don't want to cook all the time. I don't tell anyone to be vegetarian, even though the benefits are clear to me, because I came to the decision on my own. Personally, I can't knowingly be responsible for the death or torture of any living creature.

[Delta40]

Well, I for one understand that reaction, though it's indeed interesting that the reaction often comes before the person is even asked about her reasons. Some people become vegetarians / vegans for health or lifestyle reasons, yet many do it for ethical reasons. And that implies that these people find it unethical to eat meat themselves. So it's not a huge step to conclude that they'd rather not have others eating meat. I know that some things are just 'private matters', but I don't think eating habits necessarily fall into that category -- at least not if sentient beings get hurt in the process.

I disagree. I object to defacto living. I think it's wrong - for me. However, other people don't have an issue with it and live together happily for years. My objection against it is purely that it isn't for me and doesn't imply that I think people who live together should burn in hell! Nobody has ever asked me to justify why I don't believe in defacto relationships and I don't ask people who live together why they will behave like a married couple yet refuse to commit. It's just an ethical stance that I take for me as an individual but I understand we all draw different lines in the sand when it comes to standards. I don't think a person choosing vegetarianism over meat is implying anything other than eating meat is not for them.

[G L Wilson]

I love the smell of livestock being slaughtered in the morning, not.

[Dodo25]

I disagree. I object to defacto living. I think it's wrong - for me. However, other people don't have an issue with it and live together happily for years. My objection against it is purely that it isn't for me and doesn't imply that I think people who live together should burn in hell! Nobody has ever asked me to justify why I don't believe in defacto relationships and I don't ask people who live together why they will behave like a married couple yet refuse to commit. It's just an ethical stance that I take for me as an individual but I understand we all draw different lines in the sand when it comes to standards. I don't think a person choosing vegetarianism over meat is implying anything other than eating meat is not for them.

Interesting, I suppose it depends on one's view on the status of ethics in general. To me it's different, I recognize the wrongness of all the things associated with the animal industry. So I would try politically all options to make conditions better or abolish the whole industry. I think the comparison with relationships is misleading. No one really gets hurt in relationships, whereas the meat industry causes immense suffering to animals and humans alike. That takes it out of the 'private matters' sphere for me.

But I would never say or think that meat-eaters are 'bad people'. I'm against their practice, not against them as people.

As an analogy, if I had a dog, I wouldn't let it in the car for hours if it's 100 degrees outside. Obviously. But it doesn't stop there for me, if I saw someone else doing it with HIS dog, hopefully I wouldn't just mind my own business but actually talk to the owner or call help or something.

But I think the way to change this is not primarily through individuals' decisions. Most people will just keep eating meat anyway. That's why projects like 'New Harvest' are important, producing meat in the lab, without suffering. Healthier, better for the environment, cheaper, and cruelty-free! So one just has to work against people's irrational aversion to 'artificial stuff', and then the world will hopefully change for the better:)

[cl154576]

Everyone needs to choose a focus that appeals most to him/her individually.

This reminds me somewhat of a raw food Vegan woman I knew once who was most conscientious about researching the farms that produced everything she ate, wore only cotton clothing and was well-versed in yoga, transcendental meditation, and whatever else the "healthy" people nowadays consider supremely beneficial. I asked her one day if she researched the factories her clothes came from, knowing that some factories in other countries have child labor, low wages and hazardous conditions. She told me that when possible she would buy organic, fair trade cotton clothes, but that in the end she could only concentrate most on one thing and she sympathized more with animals than with humans.


But I think the way to change this is not primarily through individuals' decisions. Most people will just keep eating meat anyway. That's why projects like 'New Harvest' are important, producing meat in the lab, without suffering. Healthier, better for the environment, cheaper, and cruelty-free! So one just has to work against people's irrational aversion to 'artificial stuff', and then the world will hopefully change for the better:)

Didn't the Japanese scientists discover a way of making "meat" out of human feces some time ago? I suppose you will say we should all eat that in the future?

Do you aim to eliminate suffering?

[Dodo25]

This reminds me somewhat of a raw food Vegan woman I knew once who was most conscientious about researching the farms that produced everything she ate, wore only cotton clothing and was well-versed in yoga, transcendental meditation, and whatever else the "healthy" people nowadays consider supremely beneficial. I asked her one day if she researched the factories her clothes came from, knowing that some factories in other countries have child labor, low wages and hazardous conditions. She told me that when possible she would buy organic, fair trade cotton clothes, but that in the end she could only concentrate most on one thing and she sympathized more with animals than with humans.

One does not have to be into esoterics and new age stuff to recognize that it's an atrocity what we are doing to animals. Human suffering counts too, obviously. And by being vegan, one is contributing towards there being more / cheaper food to feed starving people in third world countries. Since we're at it, whoever cares about human suffering please also check out: http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/resources/recommended-charities.php



Didn't the Japanese scientists discover a way of making "meat" out of human feces some time ago? I suppose you will say we should all eat that in the future?

I don't care what people eat, as long as they don't cause unnecessary suffering. One can live perfectly well without meat. Or one can wait till meat is grown in the lab, or made out of feces or whatever. If it helps more people choosing a lifestyle that doesn't cause suffering, it is a good thing.



Do you aim to eliminate suffering?

Yes, it seems the most obvious thing to do for me. No sentient being wants to suffer. So suffering should be minimized.

[cl154576]

Would life have any meaning if the world were perfect?

[Dodo25]

Would life have any meaning if the world were perfect?

I see you like Dostoevsky.

After describing in graphic details the immense suffering a child had gone through, being tortured by her parents, Ivan Karamazov said the following to Alyosha:

"Why recognize that devlish good-and-evil, when it costs so much? I mean, the entire universe of knowledge isn't worth the tears of that little child addressed to 'dear Father God'."

And if, for some reason, some amount of suffering really is necessary, we can keep THAT amount, but definitely not more.

And torturing animals certainly isn't what gives meaning to our lives, is it?

[Rores28]

It is interesting the way that one's logic twists in order to justify their normal habits.

If you think that animals are sentient then you must admit that there is something wrong with factory farming them. End of story. Sentience is the marker of morality, without it there is no good or bad.

And this comes from someone who eats meat :)

The Blue Zones is a book about the longest lived populations in the world and the commonalities they share. Guess what one of them is....

[keilj]

Vegetarianism is the philosophy of the privileged

If you were a pilgrim making his way across the Midwest in the 1700's (substitute year if you want, I'm no expert on America's migratory history), you would eat anything that moved

Same with a guy during the Great Depression - you wouldn't be sitting around waxing philosophic about the souls of chickens, you would be eating them


I've been a vegetarian for many years and I am very healthy. I'm healthier than all of the meat eaters I know. I cook all of my own meals. Most people don't want to cook all the time. I don't tell anyone to be vegetarian, even though the benefits are clear to me, because I came to the decision on my own. Personally, I can't knowingly be responsible for the death or torture of any living creature.

If this is true, then I hope you don't live in any industrialized society. Because currently we are living on the backs of many suffering people. From factory workers in India and China, to the "death and suffering" that we are exporting to foreign countries with our wars (and the harm we are doing to our own youth by sending them to fight those wars).

I hope you live out in the woods and pay no taxes - otherwise you are complicit with many acts of cruelty daily

[Dodo25]

Vegetarianism is the philosophy of the privileged

If you were a pilgrim making his way across the Midwest in the 1700's (substitute year if you want, I'm no expert on America's migratory history), you would eat anything that moved

We do not live in the 17th century, so this is utterly irrelevant. We can live healthily and happily without meat. Even without any other animal products too. All the suffering caused to animals in food production is unnecessary suffering. And this should be avoided. Veganism is the option with the least amount of suffering.

If the stuff done to animals were done to human infants or late-stage Alzheimer patients, would you still talk about 'philosophy of the priviledged' and stuff? In their emotional and cognitive capacities, there is no difference. Why treat some different than others? Pain is pain, and suffering is suffering, no matter how the being experiencing it looks like.



Same with a guy during the Great Depression - you wouldn't be sitting around waxing philosophic about the souls of chickens, you would be eating them

Incidentally, vegan food is cheaper, or at least not more expensive. Exceptions are countries like the US (with 99% of their food animals being raised in factory farms!) where the subsidize the hell out of animal products. But if you count health costs too, veganism will probably still be cheaper overall. (And even if it weren't, how much money is it worth to torture for?)


If this is true, then I hope you don't live in any industrialized society. Because currently we are living on the backs of many suffering people. From factory workers in India and China, to the "death and suffering" that we are exporting to foreign countries with our wars (and the harm we are doing to our own youth by sending them to fight those wars).

I hope you live out in the woods and pay no taxes - otherwise you are complicit with many acts of cruelty daily

Sometimes it's better to work within a flawed system than to exit the system. Aside from the 53'000'000'000 land animals (and billions of sea animals) being slaughtered each year, there's of course more to care about, some of them being the things you mention. Let me add that, since it takes about 7-16 pounds of soy (or wheat) to produce 1 pound of beef, the 'distribution problem' as one cause of world poverty and starvation (more than 20'000 children die unnecessary deaths every day) is to a large extent caused by our consumption of meat. If the plant food was directly eaten instead having to inefficiently pass through cruelly treated animals, there would be much more food to distribute, and the prices would be payable for poor people too.

[keilj]

We do not live in the 17th century, so this is utterly irrelevant. We can live healthily and happily without meat. Even without any other animal products too. All the suffering caused to animals in food production is unnecessary suffering. And this should be avoided. Veganism is the option without the least amount of suffering.



Again, you're coming from some kind of privileged suburbanite background and viewing the world that way. There are still plenty of people starving around the world, and starving right here in the U.S. The religion of vegetarianism is a religion for the privileged. Go tell some homeless kid that they are doing evil by eating a hamburger.

Or, if you're saying that all us privileged suburbanites are the only ones who should give up meat - then I'm not sure I'm interested in a philosophy that only applies to certain groups. Well-formed philosophies should be able to be applied across the board

[keilj]

Sometimes it's better to work within a flawed system than to exit the system. Aside from the 53'000'000'000 land animals (and billions of sea animals) being slaughtered each year, there's of course more to care about, some of them being the things you mention. Let me add that, since it takes about 7-16 pounds of soy (or wheat) to produce 1 pound of beef, the 'distribution problem' as one cause of world poverty and starvation (more than 20'000 children die unnecessary deaths every day) is to a large extent caused by our consumption of meat. If the plant food was directly eaten instead having to inefficiently pass through cruelly treated animals, there would be much more food to distribute, and the prices would be payable for poor people too.

I think those are pretty admirable goals. But those kind of utopian outlooks ignore the realities of human nature. It won't happen, because human beings are selfish, petty, brutes and they always will be

[cyberbob]

Vegetarianism is not a philosophy. People have different reasons for doing it like for religious, nutritional, (and yes) ethical purposes, as well as to impress a cute vegeterian gir or just out of personal taste.

That's like calling physical exercise a philosophy.

I guess Veganism may be called a philosophy and maybe it is easier for people with money but the same could be said about environmentalism, giving to charity, adopting children from 3rd world countries, etc.

You could even take it further and say that it's comparatively easier to do any "good" thing with money. It's easier to go to a church if you have money for transport (for the bus or gas money for a car), it's easier to clean yourself if you can afford soap and shampoo and money to do laundry, it's easier to go to college if you can afford it, etc.

The fact that doing something is impractical for people in certain economic situations does not take away from the virtuosity of that thing. I don't ever expect African tribesmen or hobos in America to go Vegan out of compassion for animals. I don't expect them to start recycling either. However, that does not mean that recycling isn't a good thing to do for people who CAN do it, and for big corporations to be responsible and recycle.

Anyway, the tribesman and the hobo are not the major cause of the problem. I don't think they are directly the cause of environmental degradation and I don't think they're the cause of animal suffering on a massive scale, even if they do participate in these things because of their personal needs.

I think most Vegans would PREFER if people didn't WANT to eat any meat at all, but they don't expect that'll ever happen and they wouldn't want to impinge on people's civil liberties to do so. What Vegans are against is the wanton and excessive cruelty caused by the massive food industry and the apathy of the general public. In particular the treatment that animals receive in factory farms and animal testing facilities are what we are against.

We don't seek a new world order that gives animals the same rights as humans or doesn't allow humans to eat animal products. We just want the public to be more conscientious and for there to be guidelines for reducing animal suffering in the food industry.

BTW I am a hardcore libertarian so I am not in any way against the animal food industry in principle. As a libertarian, though, I believe personal liberty should be restricted if it infringes on someone else's rights. In this case I believe animals have the right to live a life free of suffering and a company's freedom to treat animals any way it pleases should be restricted by regulations, not by the wholesale banning of animal based foods.

[Dodo25]

Cyberbob, well said. I'm not a libertarian, but I find it great that veganism is so obvious that people from all kinds of ethical views arrive at it.


Again, you're coming from some kind of privileged suburbanite background and viewing the world that way. There are still plenty of people starving around the world, and starving right here in the U.S. The religion of vegetarianism is a religion for the privileged. Go tell some homeless kid that they are doing evil by eating a hamburger.

I already wrote above how eating meat, if anything, increases the number of starving human beings. If the State did not subsidize the hell out of it, hamburgers would be too expensive for homeless kids to begin with.



Or, if you're saying that all us privileged suburbanites are the only ones who should give up meat - then I'm not sure I'm interested in a philosophy that only applies to certain groups. Well-formed philosophies should be able to be applied across the board

Ethics depends on situations. If someone would starve without meat, then they should eat it. But it is actually the case that the whole world could go vegan, in fact there'd be more food than there is now even. Industries will have to adapt and stuff, but it's feasible.

Also, there's the possibility of cultured meat. Healthier, better for the environment, cheaper, and produced without cruelty.



I think those are pretty admirable goals. But those kind of utopian outlooks ignore the realities of human nature. It won't happen, because human beings are selfish, petty, brutes and they always will be

We've managed to get rid of slavery and racism. We might well manage to get rid of slaughterhouses and speciesism too. A lot of people already care. And with the help of technology, change can be accelerated. I don't think most people actually are that selfish. If they knew more about the conditions, and if they realized more that being brought up with something doesn't make it right, then more people would become vegetarians or vegans.

[cyberbob]

Well, I am also 19 years old so I think Veganism is more popular with youngsters, especially idealistic ones, regardless of specific ethos.

I dunno if much older libertarians would look at Veganism positively.

[keilj]

I think both of you make really good points, and I agree with much of what you are saying. I, for one, am sick of eating chickens and cows that have been pumped full of steroids and raised in abominably crowded and disgusting conditions.

But the original point I was trying to make, and probably my primary objection to the vegetarianism thing, is it is a conversation for the privileged. Us three can sit here in our air-conditioned living rooms, on our computers with broadband Internet, and kick these ideas around. A poor person or a hungry migrant worker would laugh us into impotence at the suggestion that burgers are evil

So again, when I hear these conversations - to me they smack of a "Talented Tenth" kind of world view

[Theunderground]

Human. Animal. An unbridgeable gulf between those twain. Never mind darwin or singer,pass the cow burgers! Yummy!