Vegetarianism

[Nikhar]

Sorry for butting in. But I do have very strong opinions (incomplete, may be, but strong)when it comes to this topic.

What I often wonder is why should you give different names to a non vegetarian and a cannibal? Please do not take this as an insult or something but I am genuinely asking this question. Whenever I posed this question to my friends, they'd ridicule that they wouldn't mind eating human meat if need arises. Obviously, they only do it coz they dont have an answer to it and they dont want to think about it.

I mean, why is eating animals right and eating humans the most heinous of crimes? Animals don't have senses? They don't feel the pain when someone chops their limbs off? Or is each animal like the cow in 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'?

Is it not indirectly supporting the fact that humans are the most intelligent of the species and they have the right to eat the 'lesser' of the animals? I mean, I cant imagine the brawl if an Einstein or a Newton wanted to eat his servant.

Imagine a world like the one in 'Soylent Green'! Urgh!

[chipper]

i honestly think that part of it is guilt. i am not saying vegetarianism is the right way.

medically, red meat has been proven to have more disadvantages than advantages. everything it has, you can get from other sources without the disadvantages. then there's the fact that these animals are killed for them.

for someone to take "actually" do something about it and not just talk about it is as hardcore as you can get.

[Paulclem]

Questions about the morality of vegetarianism are bound to come up against its relativity. For a Jain, vegetarianism is the only way. For a Christian, eating meat is not immoral due to the sanctioning of the use of the world's resources in the bible. Presumably other moral system fall somewhere between the two. It can only be an inividual choice given the disparity of view.

The other point I'd like to make is that if you label non-vegetarians as immoral, you are taking the high, and possibly a presumtious, ground. Food culture is all about culture, upbringing and environment. Some people cannot be vegetarian due to health. Some live in an environment where vegetariansim is not possible - Tibet for instance. Also, as Juniper pointed out, you are not going to make any positive impression on non-vegetarians by telling them they are immoral, wrong, cruel etc. We in the West are fortunate to be able to choose such a course, but we shouldn't merely condemn people.

As for the killing of cattle - the bolt in the brain is as humane as you can get, and remember slaughtermen do this every day. They don't often miss. I used to work in a slaughterhouse and have seen it done a lot. The animal drops straight away.

Vegetarianism is growing because, in my opinion, it has more advantages than eating meat - cheaper, healthier, and not inflicting suffering.

[Armel P]

I wasn't referring to your claim about killing for food (but I still don't agree with it), I was referring to 'chosing what to eat being a morally irrelevant issue'.

The theory of consciousness that makes the most sense to me doesn't require the 'quantum level'. I'm a bit surprised that you'd think bacteria might have consciousness... I'll just give you a list that's grounded in empirical facts and experiments on consciousness in animals and possibly other beings. For what it's worth, I have read a couple of philosophical and scientific books on these issues because it interests me and I consider it a highly relevant question for ethics. So here the list:

Category A: Rationality
Mentally healthy humans (out of the baby / little children age)

Category B: Self-Awareness
Humans (older than infant-age, mentally more or less healthy), chimpanzees, possibly other great apes; maybe though less likely: dolphins, whales, elephants...

Category C: Consciousness
Humans (all of them except forever comatose ones, or dead ones), all mammals, birds, reptiles, fishes. Possibly arthropods.

Most definitely not: Bacteria, protists, fungi, plants.

So what do these categories mean?
First of all, they don't have to be black-white, sometimes there are gradual differences. A fetus isn't self-aware, a six year old definitely is. Somewhere in between self-awareness emerges gradually.

A isn't very relevant, rationality is only needed for getting things like 'the right to vote' or 'the right for education'. It might even be considered a bad thing because it gives us responsibility. A lion can't choose whether he cruelly kills a gazelle. We can.

B is highly relevant when it comes to killing. Since non-suicidal beings of category B have a strong interest to live, killing them is wrong, even if done painlessly while they're sleeping.

C is highly relevant when it comes to suffering. Suffering is bad, that should be obvious to anyone. No being should suffer if it can be avoided.

I know you spent a long time typing that but I still don't see how it's an issue of morality. Killing and suffering are two different things for me. The killing for food is still amoral for me. It just doesn't make sense to me any other way. Reducing suffering as much as possible is something that I feel is a responsibility. Any way, this is not as clear cut as everybody wants it to be. And it's not going to be resolved here. When it comes to these topics, everyone reads literature that's supportive and ends up having great personal stake in communicating this to others...

... And, by the way, that goes for discussions of issues of health as well.

medically, red meat has been proven to have more disadvantages than advantages. everything it has, you can get from other sources without the disadvantages

People love to quote studies saying that some things are proven to be healthier than others. But they are not proven. They are studies. And for every study saying one thing, there is a study saying something else. For example, studies saying that even if zinc is present in different foods it does not get absorbed by the body as it does with red meat because red meat has certain enzymes present to aid the process. Let's not act like we have peer-reviewed concensus in the majority of the scientific community.

That is why I default to the product of my evolution. I know it works. I know it's who I am and how all the generations that led to me were. And no matter how much I surround myself with science and culture and society I don't see myself as being more than a human animal. A collection of phenotypes which includes being an omnivore and as far as I can see nothing can convince me that it is an objective moral imperitive to go against my genetic nature. With the inevitable variance among people, driven by sensibilities, some are more able to supress it than others and that's just fine. But neither choice is immoral for me. And that's not going to change no matter how much clever dancing around with words will be done in my presence. Because this is akin to original sin. I'm born in sin with an immoral nature that I have to change. In my eyes that's absurd.

[Paulclem]

That is why I default to the product of my evolution. I know it works. I know it's who I am and how all the generations that led to me were. And no matter how much I surround myself with science and culture and society I don't see myself as being more than a human animal. A collection of phenotypes which includes being an omnivore and as far as I can see nothing can convince me that it is an objective moral imperitive to go against my genetic nature. With the inevitable variance among people, driven by sensibilities, some are more able to supress it than others and that's just fine. But neither choice is immoral for me. And that's not going to change no matter how much clever dancing around with words will be done in my presence. Because this is akin to original sin. I'm born in sin with an immoral nature that I have to change. In my eyes that's absurd.

As a higher sentient beig - you have a choice, and you are not dictated by evolution - you have to choose it.

It's not akin to original sin. It's making the best choice in an imperfect world based upon your needs.

[Armel P]

As a higher sentient beig - you have a choice, and you are not dictated by evolution - you have to choose it.

It's not akin to original sin. It's making the best choice in an imperfect world based upon your needs.

What you're saying is not related to an objective morality.

[Dodo25]

Questions about the morality of vegetarianism are bound to come up against its relativity. For a Jain, vegetarianism is the only way. For a Christian, eating meat is not immoral due to the sanctioning of the use of the world's resources in the bible. Presumably other moral system fall somewhere between the two. It can only be an inividual choice given the disparity of view.

Who cares about what Christians say about the issue? Christianity is most likely wrong. Same with Jainism (though at least they're never hurting anyone, if they want to do MORE than technically necessary then let them do it, if it makes them happy that's great). Of course it comes down to individual choice eventually, but that doesn't mean all ethical systems are equal! Do you really think all ethical systems result in the same amount of well-being? Is slavery even wrong under Christianity? Suppose it wasn't (might well be the case, I think it's ambiguous), would you say the same stuff you're saying now about slavery? It's a 'personal choice'?

The other point I'd like to make is that if you label non-vegetarians as immoral, you are taking the high, and possibly a presumtious, ground. Food culture is all about culture, upbringing and environment. Some people cannot be vegetarian due to health. Some live in an environment where vegetariansim is not possible - Tibet for instance. Also, as Juniper pointed out, you are not going to make any positive impression on non-vegetarians by telling them they are immoral, wrong, cruel etc. We in the West are fortunate to be able to choose such a course, but we shouldn't merely condemn people.

You're thinking in absolutes, but that's not necessary. Eating meat causes suffering. Not eating meat when you HAVE TO in order to survive causes suffering too, and even death. So obviously the moral thing to do is to choose the path with less suffering (which would be eating meat, while still trying to treat the animals well). Who eats the most meat in the world? Rich Westeners. They DO have alternatives. Many of them.

I'm not even a perfect 'vegan' myself. I still eat milk/eggs/cheese quite often. I know it's bad, but it's also hard to make the transition. At least I try not to be too much of a hypocrite.

As for '(not) making a positive impression', who cares? I'm not trying to be loved by everyone, I'm trying to raise awareness that we should reduce the suffering in the world. And I don't condemn people (merely their habits), how could I when I've been a meat-eater for the most part of my life. I know how it is.

Vegetarianism is growing because, in my opinion, it has more advantages than eating meat - cheaper, healthier, and not inflicting suffering.

True, it's a good thing. And maybe science is soon able to produce artificial meat out of the lab. Without 'brains' and 'consciousness'. That would solve all the problems (if people could get over their 'gross!!-intuitions' that is).

I know you spent a long time typing that but I still don't see how it's an issue of morality. Killing and suffering are two different things for me. The killing for food is still amoral for me. It just doesn't make sense to me any other way. Reducing suffering as much as possible is something that I feel is a responsibility. Any way, this is not as clear cut as everybody wants it to be. And it's not going to be resolved here. When it comes to these topics, everyone reads literature that's supportive and ends up having great personal stake in communicating this to others....

Another relativist... Why not accept that some positions make more sense / produce more happiness than others? You don't even have to agree with ME, but at least you can take a stand and DISagree with the more outlandish suggestions. I have good reasons to think killing for food is only intrinsically immoral when the killed beings are self-aware. But since we agree on suffering, our views aren't too far apart. What I'm wondering now is just why you can make statements like 'x is immoral' while (further below) maintaining that you're a product of your biology. Either you have moral responsibility, or you don't. You can't make claims about morality and then hide behind biology. Make a choice (:

People love to quote studies saying that some things are proven to be healthier than others. But they are not proven. They are studies. And for every study saying one thing, there is a study saying something else. For example, studies saying that even if zinc is present in different foods it does not get absorbed by the body as it does with red meat because red meat has certain enzymes present to aid the process. Let's not act like we have peer-reviewed concensus in the majority of the scientific community.

Yeah I get it, some studies are biased. But saying 'for every study saying one thing, there's a study saying something else' is a huge exageration calling into question the whole enterprise of science. You can't be that pessimistic. Think of all the diseases we can cure at the moment. We managed to more than double the life expectancy in the last 200 years. A lot of that is due to findings from 'studies'. Every new drug has to complete study trials (and yeah, they're sometimes 'bought', but that doesn't mean you should abandon its merit altogether).

Anyway, vegetarianism IS healthier than a meat-heavy diet. There's a scientific consensus.

That is why I default to the product of my evolution. I know it works. I know it's who I am and how all the generations that led to me were. And no matter how much I surround myself with science and culture and society I don't see myself as being more than a human animal. A collection of phenotypes which includes being an omnivore and as far as I can see nothing can convince me that it is an objective moral imperitive to go against my genetic nature. With the inevitable variance among people, driven by sensibilities, some are more able to supress it than others and that's just fine. But neither choice is immoral for me. And that's not going to change no matter how much clever dancing around with words will be done in my presence. Because this is akin to original sin. I'm born in sin with an immoral nature that I have to change. In my eyes that's absurd.

Why wouldn't you go against your 'genetic nature'? Many people are born with hereditary diseases. We treat these diseases. In the short future, we'll be able to splice out the defective genes from the genome, or at least select sperms or egg cells that don't have the particular defect (this is already done actually with the gene for Huntington's Chorea) and then perform an in-vitor fertilization with only 'healthy' chromosomes.

Nature isn't 'good', that the naturalistic fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Nature is indifferent to good and evil, indifferent to suffering. Xenophobia and hatred of out-groups is in our genes too. So is pronness to violence or rape, at least in some cases. That doesn't mean we HAVE TO act that way. Genes aren't deterministic (except for i.e. Huntington's Chorea), there are other factors shaping human behavior. And fortunately, compassion, empathy and reason are in our genes too. We have to cultivate the good stuff and beware and supress the bad stuff.

I don't believe in 'free will' in the sense it's most commonly understood. But if you think about it, who really does? If free will means you could technically do several different actions at some exact point in time, with all the input (genes, memories, outside situation, memes / neuron firing patterns etc.) being the same, then what/who would actually be making the decision?? Without 'deterministic factors' (the input I was talking about), we wouldn't have REASONS for our actions / decisions. It would have to be random. The traditional definition of 'free will' is self-contradicting.

Daniel Dennett came up with a new, useful definition:
Free will is whatever gives us moral responsibility, if we have it.

And yes, most people do have it. That's why punishment works as a deterrent, at least to some extent. We can grasp moral truths, and we try to act morally, at least most of the time, if the temptations aren't too big.


"Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence; the gift of revulsion against its implications; the gift of foresight - something utterly foreign to the blundering short-term ways of natural selection - and the gift of internalizing the very cosmos."
- Richard Dawkins

[Paulclem]

What you're saying is not related to an objective morality.

I never mentioned objective morality. I'm saying that your stance about evolution making you a meat eating omnivore is not the whole story. That's just the starting point. As an individual, you can make the choice about what you eat. Evolutionary excuses can be given for all kinds of activity which are really about power an domination.

Who cares about what Christians say about the issue? Christianity is most likely wrong. Same with Jainism (though at least they're never hurting anyone, if they want to do MORE than technically necessary then let them do it, if it makes them happy that's great). Of course it comes down to individual choice eventually, but that doesn't mean all ethical systems are equal! Do you really think all ethical systems result in the same amount of well-being? Is slavery even wrong under Christianity? Suppose it wasn't (might well be the case, I think it's ambiguous), would you say the same stuff you're saying now about slavery? It's a 'personal choice'?

You're thinking in absolutes, but that's not necessary. Eating meat causes suffering. Not eating meat when you HAVE TO in order to survive causes suffering too, and even death. So obviously the moral thing to do is to choose the path with less suffering (which would be eating meat, while still trying to treat the animals well). Who eats the most meat in the world? Rich Westeners. They DO have alternatives. Many of them.

I'm not even a perfect 'vegan' myself. I still eat milk/eggs/cheese quite often. I know it's bad, but it's also hard to make the transition. At least I try not to be too much of a hypocrite.

As for '(not) making a positive impression', who cares? I'm not trying to be loved by everyone, I'm trying to raise awareness that we should reduce the suffering in the world. And I don't condemn people (merely their habits), how could I when I've been a meat-eater for the most part of my life. I know how it is.

I merelly referred to Christianity and Jainism as representing two poles of attitudes concerning eating meat. I'm not quite sure why you are going on about all ethical system being equal. I'm talking about the range of perspectives on eating meat.

I'm a vegetarian because killing animals causes suffering. I've mentioned choice in earlier posts.

As for '(not) making a positive impression', who cares? I'm not trying to be loved by everyone, I'm trying to raise awareness

This is misguided. Nor am I interested in being loved by everyone. My point is that it is less effective to be aggressively vegetarian than to set a positive example. Soap box vegetarianism does more harm than good. It hardens attitudes, and polarises the argument. There is a good case for vegetarianism which can stand by itself - health, morality, as it causes inordinate suffering, and it is economically more sensible.

[Emil Miller]

As for the killing of cattle - the bolt in the brain is as humane as you can get, and remember slaughtermen do this every day. They don't often miss. I used to work in a slaughterhouse and have seen it done a lot. The animal drops straight away.

Unfortunately the terror of the slaughterhouse begins some time before this process. Many years ago, I was being driven along a country road in a friend's car when we were held up because a large van had stopped in the road. The vehicle was a cattle transporter and one of the cows had broken out and was trying to run into a field while two men were trying to force it back into the van. When we managed to pass the van we could see by the sign painted on it that it was a slaughterer's vehicle. I said to my friend what a terrible thing it was for the animal but he didn't reply and looked fixedly ahead with this jaws clenched. From that day on he refused to eat meat.

[Paulclem]

Unfortunately the terror of the slaughterhouse begins some time before this process. Many years ago, I was being driven along a country road in a friend's car when we were held up because a large van had stopped in the road. The vehicle was a cattle transporter and one of the cows had broken out and was trying to run into a field while two men were trying to force it back into the van. When we managed to pass the van we could see by the sign painted on it that it was a slaughterer's vehicle. I said to my friend what a terrible thing it was for the animal but he didn't reply and looked fixedly ahead with this jaws clenched. From that day on he refused to eat meat.

Yes. As I said, I worked in a slaughterhouse in the 1980's - times were hard, I couldn't get a job etc etc. I saw this all the time; the fear present in the animals as they were unloaded from the wagons. Pigs would often die in transit due to stress, and there was always the chance that animals would be injured going into the lairage. There were vets on site to ensure that the animals were looked after whilst they were there - which always seemed a bit odd to me, but must have had a better effect than if they weren't present. Some of the workers were not exactly cruel, in the pain inducing way, but would terrorise the animals into the slaughter pens. It's not a nice industry.

[Dodo25]

I merelly referred to Christianity and Jainism as representing two poles of attitudes concerning eating meat. I'm not quite sure why you are going on about all ethical system being equal. I'm talking about the range of perspectives on eating meat.

I'm a vegetarian because killing animals causes suffering. I've mentioned choice in earlier posts.

I know you're a vegetarian, even for the same general reasons as I am. Some of what you said earlier just had this relativistic component in it. Meaning 'I am vegetarian for personal reasons, but if other people choose something else then there's nothing wrong with it'. If you have sound moral reasons, so should they. So basically if we're disagreeing somewhere (I'm not even sure we are), then it's about meta-ethics, the 'reach' of ethics.

This is misguided. Nor am I interested in being loved by everyone. My point is that it is less effective to be aggressively vegetarian than to set a positive example. Soap box vegetarianism does more harm than good. It hardens attitudes, and polarises the argument. There is a good case for vegetarianism which can stand by itself - health, morality, as it causes inordinate suffering, and it is economically more sensible.

Fair enough. It's the same with 'strategies promoting atheism', either be blunt and risk to alienate lots of 'moderates', or be respectful while still subtly pointing out things. I personally think the former is more effective, but I can't be sure. Something to think about though: You mention 'morality' as a reason. That's just what I'm doing too, making a strong moral case. And as I see it, it's either right or wrong, there's no middle ground. People should at least try to eat less meat, and look where it comes from choosing the more animal-friendly ways of production. Many already do this -- great! And fortunately, as you said, there are also ecological (this sorta touches morality too because we have responsibility for future generations, as well as towards starving / dying of thirst people living in the present), money- and health related reasons.

[Paulclem]

I know you're a vegetarian, even for the same general reasons as I am. Some of what you said earlier just had this relativistic component in it. Meaning 'I am vegetarian for personal reasons, but if other people choose something else then there's nothing wrong with it'. If you have sound moral reasons, so should they. So basically if we're disagreeing somewhere (I'm not even sure we are), then it's about meta-ethics, the 'reach' of ethics.

We are basically in agreement about the meat thing, just not about whether we can change others' behaviour by what we say. I don't think we can, and I would not want to try. Some religious people try this method, but I'm pretty sure it puts off more than it attracts. Against the weight of family and culture, what we say is probably meaningless in the wider sense. I have little faith in that method. We can perhaps hope to influence people near us by our example, but not necessarily.

Of course there's always more that can be done - pressure groups, whistle blowing, monitoring etc etc. It depends whether you or I are in a position to do any of that, or are even willing to do it. I'm wary of radical groups - it's not perhaps their ideals, but the type of people they attract and their personal agendas. I prefer a softer approach.

[JuniperWoolf]

I remember once deliberately trying as hard as I could to eat as many chicken wings as possible (and definitely an odd number) so I could rub it into the face of a vegetarian colleague how many chickens just died because of me (: Actually it's not very funny and I don't really know why I did it back then.. It's an interesting psychological reaction anyway.

That's exactly my point. We could talk forever about why, that part doesn't really matter. What does matter is that when people try to take the stance that they're "educating" us, especially on issues of morality (implying that we are the ones who are immoral), we'll take the opposite stance and do it in as blatantly and excessively as possible. In short, if you keep preaching about eating meat, people are going to get annoyed and eat MORE meat, and it will be your fault that more animals died (which I assume is the opposite reaction to what you want). This isn't just true of vegetarianism, it's the way things are with almost everything. I first became an atheist because of evangelists (you've got to admit that they're annoying, and when was the last time that Jehovah's Witnesses actually converted someone?). You'd be better off shutting up about how morally superior you are. If you want people to listen to your point, you've got to think of a less heavy-handed way to do so.

[Cunninglinguist]

I remember once deliberately trying as hard as I could to eat as many chicken wings as possible (and definitely an odd number) so I could rub it into the face of a vegetarian colleague how many chickens just died because of me (: Actually it's not very funny and I don't really know why I did it back then.. It's an interesting psychological reaction anyway.

And Augustine wasted 15 minutes of my life talking about how he stole some pears?...He woulda' written volumes over this. xD

[ladderandbucket]

I don't think the argument about the way in which animals are slaughtered is a good one. It doesn't take into account that, whatever your circumstances, there is no pleasant way to die. Consider the ways in which an animal may be killed in a slaughterhouse and compare them to the ways in which an animal may die in the wild. I know which kind of death I would choose for myself.

In all honesty, if I was to be reborn as an animal, I think I would prefer the security of a farm than the life of a wild animal. From a certain point of view farming is the best thing that happened to animals, much as you might say industrial civilisation was the best thing to happen to us. It reminds me of Hobbes's idea about the state of nature being nasty, brutish and short. Perhaps you believe in the idea of a noble savage...maybe a pig left in the wild leads a blissful uncorrupted life, but it seems to run counter to the principle of natural selection.

In Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett writes:

How clever of wild sheep to have acquired that most versatile adaptation, the shepherd! By forming a symbiotic alliance with Homo sapiens, sheep could outsource their chief survival tasks: food finding and predator avoidance. They even got shelter and emergency medical care thrown in as a bonus. The price they paid – losing the freedom of mate selection and being slaughtered instead of being killed by predators (if that is a cost) – was a pittance compared with the gain in offspring survival it purchased.

I don't know what I think about this idea. I think it comes down to where you find the value in being alive. I do have a big problem with animals being battery farmed but I don't see that eating meat is necessarily wrong. I feel quite happy eating free range meat...in fact I think it may be better than not eating meat at all. Nobody will notice if I become a vegetairian but if I pay twice as much money for an ethically farmed chicken I am sure it will register somewhere.