Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Is that not exactly why we are all hypocrites, because none of us would understand why another would admit it.Quote:
Haha.. :D But if we are hypocrites, why would we admit to being one? :P
.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Menard
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"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
And do men also need no more justifcation to rape women than chimps need to rape chimp females?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I guess you missed the statement I made later on. I'll quote it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Menard
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
Would you mind eating humans if need arises? If yes, why? If no, I understand.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
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.
I would think that seeing a plant or insect respond to external stimuli IS evidence of sentience.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
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.
If you look around, you'll find a lot of street animals, cows included. No one kills those cows but no one cares about them. These animal eat filth from the garbage, polythene full of junk and other harmful things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
Not all buy from the cattle owners, and you can't be sure if they haven't mixed anything artificial or added more water. I tried this but I couldn't manage it as I don't own a fridge, so now I buy milk from the super market available as tetra-paks, which can last for over a month. There are companies like Amul, Mother Dairy, Nandini, etc., that procure milk from farmers, process it and sell variety of dairy products, like milk with different fat levels, ghee, paneer, butter, curd and so on. These work on cooperative structure and also provide additional support services like artificial insemination, cattle-feed, etc. The cattle-owners are doing a business so one can never be sure if the cows/buffalos are treated well. I think, they won't be killing it but they make sure that it produces more than enough milk, and I am not sure what they do after it dries up. Maybe they sell it to a butcher or let loose like a street animal as maintaining cows past that stage would just add to their expense. So, a cow is a sacred animal but it is a part of a business too.
Not quite, all sorts of machines react to external input in complex ways. Sentience is certainly difficult to define, but we know just from relatedness that most other chordates have brains sufficiently like ours that they probably have the same basic feelings of pain and fear. Plants lack the actual organs involved in sense. What good would it do for a plant to feel anyway: they can't move away from what is hurting them, they can't fight back, they can't perceive their environment to any great extent. Plants not only lack the sensory organs that would explain how they would feel, they lack the impetus to evolve such a response.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Insects are more problematic because they are more similar to chordates than plants, but it is difficult to say for sure how their brains function.
Well, if the need arose, I wouldn't have that many reservations--I mean, if it's like one of those trapped on a mountain scenarios where it's eat or die, I'd eat. I wouldn't eat other people just for the heck of it, though. I'd do it on a dare, maybe, if I knew how the meat was obtained and what-not, but it'd be too creepy just to go to a store and buy some human ribs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
I didn't quite make it to the Vietnamese Dog Market where I could buy all sorts of cuts but I would have quite happily tried a dog steak, merely out of curiosity. Meat is meat and I can cross the borders of cultural tastes. Eating humans would certainly be a curious experience indeed but I would need to know how they landed on my plate first...
Does that mean you think that robots and machines, as OrphanPip pointed out, are sentient?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
[My emphasis]Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
That's my view as well, the mere act of eating dead flesh isn't problematic because it's dead, no one gets hurt anymore. It depends on how it got there, and whether eating it encourages more of the "how it got there" happening in the future.
What I can't understand is the double standard, why not have qualms about trying dog meat from a Vietnamese dog market? How do you think that meat got there? It's a Vietnamese dog market, for Dog's sake! (Not trying to be racist, American and European factory farms are just as bad.)
I guess I don't feel all that inclined to question the livelihood of the poor.
Regarding machines, they are not alive. I know that might come as a shock to people hoping Kurzweil's "singularity" will save them, but let's stay with reality for a moment. Since machines are not alive, that means they are not sentient. As far as this discussion of vegetarianism goes, you are free to eat them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
The fact that living things respond to stimuli is evidence that they may be sentient. For some definitions of sentience, that is all the evidence that is required. For others, one might have to look further.
I think one could say that plants probably have a more refined sense of sunlight than we do. Just because they don't sense things the way we do doesn't mean they don't sense things at all. So their sensing sunlight is further evidence of sentience. Some plants react when you touch them. Again, this is further evidence of sentience. As far as an "impetus to evolve such a response", I can see how sensing light and touch would likely be very useful to plants.
I think I'd eat human before I eat dog. I love dogs more than humans. Like, of a dog dies in a movie, I'll feel way sadder than if any of the human characters. It doesn't even have to be main character, it can just be some random dog. It can even be a mean dog and I'll still feel bad, like when the dog gets shot in No Country for Old Men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
I'd eat human, but only if I could taunt them about it while they were still alive:
"Hey Joe, guess what I'm having for supper tomorrow night?"
"Aww, shut up!"
This is an oddly anxt ridden thread. Starvation has little to do with the choice of vegetarianism that we are lucky enough to have in richer countries.
In a survival situation - we are unlikely to know or appreciate what we would do, though the examples of cannibalism we have such as in famines, mean that people can be driven to it. In that crash in the Andes, they had to eat the dead, and why wouldn't they? It seems logical to me, though no doubt hard to execute.
I'm not a vegetarian, but I do support animals being treated well and killed humanely (if killing can be humane in the first place). Like Mutatis, I feel bad if I kill an insect, even a cockroach, but generally I will only kill insects if they are causing a havoc (cockoroach infestation means you can't leave any food out... mosquitoes carry diseases and I get soooo many bites every summer it is almost unbearable, etc). I try not to kill even any insects on purpose and will often 'save' drowning spiders, bugs, etc and take them outside, rather than squashing them. So I suppose I might be a reverse hypocrite... I eat meat (though not that often, and I try to eat from local farms and all that), but I find the killing of animals still quite awful...
But reading these posts about cows, I wanted to mention the claim that methane from decomposing cow dung accounts for 16 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (about five tons of CO2 per cow per year). So it makes me wonder whether all those cows wandering around in India really are rather harmful... what do people think about this??
Another note, it is custom in Islam for during the Eid-al-Adha (the 'Festival of Sacrifice') an animal is sacrificed and slaightered (usually a Ram) and the meat is divided: the family keeps one third; another third is given to relatives, friends and neighbors; and the other third is given to the poor and needy (though with my friends and family, generally they give all of it to the needy). Rams can definitely sense that they will be slaughtered, as they get very anxious and nervous... One time I saw one being slaughtered, and I am still traumatized to this day... but on the other hand, I do see the benefit in it, and the fact that there is a humanitarian and charitable aspect to it helps...
I don't even have any clear arguments or opinions here... just writing. :)
I've heard of that also. I didn't know it was such a large percentage of the greenhouse gas. If the cow is kept in a more mechanized barn, is the methane able to be harvested as well or does it contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions?Quote:
Originally Posted by PoeticPassions
I suppose if most of us became vegetarians, the number of animals on the earth would decrease and the number of humans could increase. We may also live healthier lives by cooperating less with other animal species.
I'm supposing you could use the dung for fertilizer, and maybe even harvest it in some way to use it as energy (bah, I'm not well informed on the science behind this, but just using common sense). But this is where the problem in India is-- it seems as though, largely, the cows are uncontrolled and free to roam. A lot of them are starving, so they scavenge for food and mix in with humans in markets, stores, garbage heaps etc. causing another kind of social and health problem... I'm just wondering if maybe there is a reason humans eat meat and that there should be some way to balance things out. We should protect endangered species, but at the same time perhaps allow some kind of natural cycle in which predators eat prey and all that... I don't know. Animals eat each other. It would be better if we hunted though instead of mistreated animals as we do now in these mass production farms and slaughterhouses. It pains me when I see the way that the animals are kept and treated and fed just so that they can be food for humans. It seems really quite unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
It makes me wonder if modern dairy farming is not better than what is done in India for both humans and cattle.Quote:
Originally Posted by PoeticPassions
Not me, I'd suicide (why isn't "suicide" a verb?). I decided a long time ago that that's my exit strategy if I ever found myself in a seriously horrible situation eg. stranded in the frozen woods surrounded by my family's corpses faced with the prospect of eating them, chained up in some monster's rape dungeon, &c.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
I could eat dog, no problem. Actually, when I see a dog that's in particularly good shape or who looks nice and plump, I sometimes think "that would be good eating if we were ever lost in the mountains or something." My friend Steve has a delicious looking dog. His name is even "Porky."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/p..._3370031_n.jpg
Lookit him, he's shaped like a ham. His eyes always look like he knows I'm thinking of eating him, though.
Here here! Hahahaha. All you say here is both funny and true. Common sense. I also would sooner die than become a cannibal. I'm a pretty crazy survivalist at times...but even I posit boundaries and eating a person is definitely one of them. I would way way way rather die than do that. This seems like basic reason to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I just posted this on Quora which I think might also be relevant to this thread. --
I'll add my two bits here. As a lot of the other guys who have answered here, I grew up in a vegetarian house so initially in a way I was forced to be a vegetarian. But I'm 20 now and I still do not eat meat and it is my choice.
Most of my reasons have already been covered in other posts here.
Also, I just can't imagine, let alone actually do it, the thought of eating an animal that once lived, breathed, had emotions, felt pain and was also capable of showing love. As an example, I have seen many people saying that cows are so dumb. I wonder how many of these people have had a chance to observe one in close proximity. The love one cow shows for her calf is immense. I have seen so many instances where a cow grows very anxious if she thinks there is a danger to her child. They protect their child much like a human mother would. There are these two particular incidences that come to my mind.
There were these two guys on a scooter and the person on the backseat was holding a young calf on his legs. They were riding pretty slowly and the reason I guess was the cow who followed the scooter religiously (presumable the calf's mother). She was sprinting as fast as a cow could, not willing to let her child out of sight for a moment.
My mother told me about this other incident as she had seen it from her own eyes through the window. We have this kind of backyard (I say kind of because it isnt exactly a backyard and it doesn't belong to us but I do not know it's English term ) at our house. A cow had just given birth to her child over there. The calf was covered in blood. The cow actually licked the blood off her child. When I later on saw the cow and calf, remembering the story did not gross me out but instead filled me with that emotion that makes you giddy with warmth and happiness, something that you feel when you see love in its purest form.
Also, it might interest some of you to visit the following website and watch the video.
MeatVideo.com
Her's the answer on Quora.
I agree with you about cows. We have more in common emotionally with other species than we realize.
Recently, I finished reading Larry Young and Brian Alexander's The Chemistry Between Us. They described how the more or less monogamous prairie vole was used to identify the chemicals that form a basis for love in both our species. These chemicals don't determine love, but they make it possible, like an eye makes it possible to see.
I'm omnivorous. I eat when I'm hungry and drink when I'm dry. When I lose my teeth I may have to live on brochan tana lom but now I can rip and tear and chew like any beast.
Today while discussing vegetarianism with a friend, I got the weirdest (and something that just feels outright stupid) counter argument. I'll just quote the communication as is. Pardon the grammar since these are snippets from a facebook conversation.
me:
her:Quote:
again... my argument of eating plants has never been that they feel less pain... it's that it's inevitable...plants being the only organisms that can manufacture their own food... for any organisms survival it has to sit atop plants in the food chain... not the case with animals... you can live an equally, if not better, healthy life by not killing animals. I would be totally fine with people eating animals if it came to their survival. Right now the argument to eat animals more seems like we eat them because we can
Now this argument just seems absolutely ridiculous to me. But I didn't have any other response to it. However stupid it was, I was stumped by it. The only response I could think of wasQuote:
but the basic point which I want to raise is why we at all need to survive ...if we are some much into caring attitude then either we should kill ourself and let plants and other living forms survive or else we should find some new entity which is not living being for our food..but again the question is why do we need to survive..why is it at all important ?
What would have been your response in this case?Quote:
there's a difference between being practical and being stupid
We are here so we survive until we are no longer able or willing to survive. I suppose eating plants would be better for our survival and the quality of life.
I assume that our being here is good and that the universe is good. But those are just assumptions.
P1: "Vegetarians" refers to humans who eat no meat.
P2: All humans are hypocrites.
Conclusion: All vegetarians are hypocrites.
I don't see the choice of being a veggie as a survival choice - it's just a choice that is available where it wasn't before. That's my personal situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
It may be that the bigger picture - the choice of meat rather than crops could be cited as a survival choice due to the dedication of land to livestock rather than plants. Politically the richer nations can make that choice, but this may be at the expense of world food stocks and reduced food production leading to starvation in certain countries. Of course this is a very simple view - the market structure of trade means it would be no simple thing to distribute food.
I don't consider vegetarianism as reducible to a survival choice either. I was trying to make sense out of the survival idea that someone arguing with Nikhar made.
I agree, Nikhar. She made a silly argument. I doubt we could collectively, as a species, decide not to survive. Individually, of course, people do it all the time, (suicide) but it doesn't have much effect on the overall ecosphere. This is a circular argument, but we survive because we are survivors. We are who we are because we evolved to this point largely out of an intense survival instinct. Other species no longer exist because they were not as good at it as we were.
To your earlier post, I agree again. Cows are good mamas. And I'm here to tell Ya that a mama cow will lick more than blood off of her calf. My neighbor has 20 or 30 Black Angus and I like to watch them. So I noticed one day that one of the little cows was brown not black. I took a closer look and determined that the little cow was actually black, but he just looked brown because he was covered in poop. For some strange reason the other cows liked to back up and poop on him. Go figure. Anyway, mama cow was dutifully licking the poop off of little cow, making him black again. True story, I sh*t you not.
Apologies Yesno. I should have looked back.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I agree that survival should come first before the choice.