i am pesco vegetarian. i am not ready to give up fish yet but someday i will.
i believe that the only vital nutrition that a vegetarian lacks is protein which he can get from soy.
i love animals but that is not the primary reason i gave up meat. it's health reasons. i feel better with only vegetables and fruits. I eat fish once a week. i eat mostly raw food. my digestion is better, i have more energy, i think better, i look better, i smell better, i run better, i talk better...
I think PETA is indeed too radical, but I can very much side with vegans that go around (non-violently and respectfully!) challenging meat eaters to change their habits. I mean, once you realize that something is morally wrong, ought you not to try to prevent others from doing it too? If someone leaves a dog for hours caged in an overheating car in the sun in the middle of the day, the best thing to do would be to find the owner and talk to him, or call animal protection service right away. You don't just walk by and think 'Well I'm not the one doing this to the dog, so everything's fine'. It should be the same with eating habits. 'Respect personal choice'? Screw that, if beings suffer for it then that's clearly more important, or am I missing something?Originally Posted by cyberbob
Oh and thanks for bringing the discussion back on topic (:
The last thing we need is more people proletysing. It's those people that give vegetarians a bad name, indeed.
Is it morally wrong to eat meat?
You know I had brain fever, and that is to be mad.
Fortunately, that's only a small problem. At least if I'm right and veganism (or vegetariansm) isn't just a personal choice due to health or taste reasons, but actually the only morally acceptable alternative to a serious evil, comparable to slavery, say.
Obviously, changing one's habits is difficult, and some people just can't go all the way. That's okay, and condemning or hating them helps no one! The best one can do is to encourage them to care and do what they can. If 100 people start eating half the amount of meat they'd normally eat, then the result is the same as if 50 of them went vegetarian!
That's what a big part of this thread is/was about. If you want a short, somewhat oversimplifying answer, my answer would be yes, given today's circumstances.
Obviously, if you accidentally drive over a deer on the road, you might as well eat it since it's dead anyway. So eating meat isn't intrinsically wrong. What's wrong is how the majority (99% even) of meat is produced. Even organic 'animal friendly' farms have its issues, and they too use slaughter methods that cause a considerable amount of suffering. And anyway, the majority of meat comes from factory farms.
Here the moral case against eating meat:
Additionally, there are huge ecological reasons, which touch back on ethics again. Is it ethical to feed all the soya that's produced in developing countries to cattle, who need eleven times more food than they ultimately produce in form of steaks, which by the way use up about 7'500 litres of water per pound for 'production', while at the same time, the population in these countries is poor, starving and low on water? The food prizes go up, and the result is lots of people dying and suffering, so the wealthy people can eat some tasty meat.
And since we also owe something to future generations, what about greenhouse gases?
Ethics composiums almost always serve vegan food, and that not for fashion reasons!
Last edited by Dodo25; 05-14-2011 at 01:45 PM.
Well, I don't think killing animals is wrong, nor do I think there's anything intrinsically wrong with animals suffering. It's part of the world. A rabit suffers greatly when it's attacked by one of its predators and even predators can suffer great injuries from their prey. It's a natural thing and I don't see how that can be wrong in any way.
We have the ability, however, to reduce their suffering. And that is something I stand behind completely. I'm very much against the meat industry (due to the way they treat animals) and I think I've explained in this thread how I deal with that (if not, I will elucidate later).
Yes, animal friendly farms also have issues and might cause some suffering to animals, but like I said, there's nothing wrong with a lil' good ole suffering. Besides, "vegetarian" farming causes suffering to thousands of animals as well, especially if you want to feed humans with your crops.
I'm perfectly aware of how much water goes into a steak. I'm also perfectly aware of how much water goes into a pair of jeans. I'm perfectly aware of how much suffering jeans causes to people. The rare earth metals used in our computers, cell phones and basically every piece of modern technology (incl. for example solar panels and wind turbines) is extremely polluting. In fact, mining these rare elements is one of the most polluting industries at the moment. I'm aware of a lot of things and it tells me that changing our diet will have very little impact on our lives, our environment and on the world unless we simple change our entire culture.
Going veggie, switching to green energy... won't make a difference at all unless we radically re-examine our place in the world.
Well, sure it is. Tell me again, why is it ok to kill plants? Or invertebrates for that matter? Oh yes, that's right. Speciesism.typical speciesist statement. Let's move this to the vegetarianism thread, we're somewhat off topic. My fault btw, again. http://www.online-literature.com/for...94#post1034294
And if I had to make a choice between saving a cow or a human baby. I'd go for the human baby. Why? Speciesism. I'm sure you wouldn't care which one you saved. You value them equally, right?
You know I had brain fever, and that is to be mad.
Neither do I. Unless of course the animals in question are self-aware like (older-than-baby) humans, and likely chimpanzees to a smaller extent.
Why do you have such faith in nature? Socialism, charity, health care, condom use, all these are extremely unnatural. Evolution would never produce such a thing. They're all the product of human minds, which have to some extent overcome the leash of the genes. We don't anymore behave in ways which maximize the spreading of our genes. And isn't that a good thing?
Suffering is intrinsically wrong. There's a case to be made that as long as we can't change it, we shouldn't be too bothered by animals suffering in the wild, I grant you that. But it changes if WE are the ones inflicting suffering. Without humans, there wouldn't be nearly as many cows, pigs, chicken and so on as there are now. WE are responsible for their suffering, and we CAN change it quite easily.
And if sometime in the future we'll have the technology to change the suffering in animals, we should do it. Why should we accept suffering? Evolution is blind and indifferent, simply because it produced something doesn't mean we have to accept it!
I think I remember you commenting on the issue. See, we have some common ground here!
I assume you're talking about the animals that lose their habitats, or the ones suffering from pollutions? Or humans suffering in general? Well yeah, obviously. So what? We have a whole list of alternatives, some with a huge amount of suffering, some what a smaller (fraction of a fraction!) amount of suffering. Simply saying 'there's suffering in both, so we shouldn't change anything' doesn't make sense. We should try to minimize the suffering. And as for the human influences, it might be worth thinking about to reduce the global population. Education and information on contraceptives helps greatly in that regard.
Of course there are other problems as well. But meat production is one of the biggest, if not the biggest problem. It creates more greenhouse gases than global traffic does! And it's something we can easily change. If people help to spread awareness and try to become vegan to the best of their abilities, the difference will matter.
Have you even read my posts?? I said what matters is the capacity to suffer. If done painlessly, killing isn't bad, unless the beings are self-aware. So yeah, there's a difference between humans and other animals, but only regarding to killing, not to suffering. Plants can't suffer, and even if they could, we'd have to choose the lesser evil. Plants are eaten regardless of us eating meat or vegetarian, what differs is only by whom/what they're eaten.
Assuming the baby isn't yet 'self-aware' (depends on the age, and it's hard to tell), does the baby have parents that care about it? Could the baby make a family really happy that is looking for adoption? Would not saving the baby create outrage in some people and thereby make them less happy?
If the answer to all the above were 'no', then it depends on who would have less expected suffering in the future life, the baby or the cow. If the cow was to be killed cruelly for meat production, I'd still save the baby. If the cow was to lead a nice life, and the baby an average life, I'd choose the cow.
It's not a question of what's natural or unnatural. It's a question of what's wrong and right and in my opinion suffering is neither wrong nor right.
I agree.Suffering is intrinsically wrong. There's a case to be made that as long as we can't change it, we shouldn't be too bothered by animals suffering in the wild, I grant you that. But it changes if WE are the ones inflicting suffering. Without humans, there wouldn't be nearly as many cows, pigs, chicken and so on as there are now. WE are responsible for their suffering, and we CAN change it quite easily.
I completely disagree with you here. In fact, I think this kind of reasoning is what's wrong with the world. Why do people want to control everything? Why shouldn't we accept it?And if sometime in the future we'll have the technology to change the suffering in animals, we should do it. Why should we accept suffering? Evolution is blind and indifferent, simply because it produced something doesn't mean we have to accept it!
I have a bit of an odd stance when it comes to these matters but in general I will agree with the "vegetarian" stance.I think I remember you commenting on the issue. See, we have some common ground here!
That's not what I'm saying. If the suffering of animals is the reason why one becomes vegetarian, he might as well stop eating. Animals suffer regardless of the diet you choose.I assume you're talking about the animals that lose their habitats, or the ones suffering from pollutions? Or humans suffering in general? Well yeah, obviously. So what? We have a whole list of alternatives, some with a huge amount of suffering, some what a smaller (fraction of a fraction!) amount of suffering. Simply saying 'there's suffering in both, so we shouldn't change anything' doesn't make sense.
I agree. But it's you who rallies against the meat industry but keeps quiet about the loss and destruction of habitat and the killing and poisoning of all kinds of animals with pesticides and herbicides. Things which are of vital importance to the vegan diet. If we stop destroying habitats and stop using pesticides, the vegan world dream seems to fade rather rapidly. In fact, it seems that the human population would find itself in a bit of a pickle.We should try to minimize the suffering.
Totally agree.And as for the human influences, it might be worth thinking about to reduce the global population. Education and information on contraceptives helps greatly in that regard.
It might matter, but we'll still be polluting and raping our world. All in the name of progress.Of course there are other problems as well. But meat production is one of the biggest, if not the biggest problem. It creates more greenhouse gases than global traffic does! And it's something we can easily change. If people help to spread awareness and try to become vegan to the best of their abilities, the difference will matter.
That's also a typical speciesist statement.
Also, animals are eaten regardless of us eating meat or vegetarian, what differs is only by whom/what they're eaten.
Interesting.Assuming the baby isn't yet 'self-aware' (depends on the age, and it's hard to tell), does the baby have parents that care about it? Could the baby make a family really happy that is looking for adoption? Would not saving the baby create outrage in some people and thereby make them less happy?
If the answer to all the above were 'no', then it depends on who would have less expected suffering in the future life, the baby or the cow. If the cow was to be killed cruelly for meat production, I'd still save the baby. If the cow was to lead a nice life, and the baby an average life, I'd choose the cow.
You know I had brain fever, and that is to be mad.
Why shouldn't we accept it? Why should we accept it? Merely asking rhetorical questions doesn't make a case. Suffering is the epitome of 'bad'. There's no reason to tolerate severe suffering if we have the means to change it.
They suffer LESS if people ate vegan. Or better, LESS animals suffer. Obviously the numbers do make a difference.
You're still missing the point about meat production being inefficient. An example:
I eat one pound of meat. The result: The cow had to suffer for it, AND eleven pounds of vegan food (not grass, actual soya or crops or whatever) were used by the cow to produce the meat I just ate. So altogether, eating one pound of meat is eating a pound of meat AND eleven pounds of vegan food (on average).
On the other hand, I could just as well eat one pound of vegan food, and that's it, no additional cost. See the difference? No matter how bad agriculture is and how much suffering it causes, eating meat causes, on average, eleven times more the damage AND the suffering in the animal.
Sure. We should try to change that too. I'm just saying the food issue is comparatively easy to change, and it would a comparatively huge effect, so best start with that (but don't neglect the other problems of course).
"Originally Posted by Dodo25
Have you even read my posts?? I said what matters is the capacity to suffer. If done painlessly, killing isn't bad, unless the beings are self-aware. So yeah, there's a difference between humans and other animals, but only regarding to killing, not to suffering. Plants can't suffer, and even if they could, we'd have to choose the lesser evil. Plants are eaten regardless of us eating meat or vegetarian, what differs is only by whom/what they're eaten."
No it isn't! If you have to choose between once suffering and eleven times suffering, choosing the former isn't speciesist. We could technically stop eating altogether, but then everyone dies, and that produces suffering too, a lot of it, not to mention the violation of our fundamental preference 'not to be killed'.
It's not 'speciesism' if there actually are differences. If women were completely stupid and incapable of having a coherent thought, then not granting them the right to vote would not be sexist, but rather reasonable. The fact is though, that women aren't totally stupid, they aren't even stupider than men.
For that reason, painlessly killing a cow isn't morally wrong, while painlessly killing a human being would be (in most circumstances anyway). But the important point is that in suffering, humans and other animals are alike (to a great extent at least).
Yup. It's logical, consistent, and it produces the least amount of suffering. If you favor Homo sapiens above anything else, you're making the same mistake racists or sexists made. Unless you believe that humans have immortal souls while animals don't, you'll have a hard time justifying always picking the baby (but then again, you also have a hard time justifying that there are souls).
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. It exists for all sentient beings (one may even include insects here). What gives us the authority to intervene in nature so drastically? If people want to lessen their own suffering, that's normal. 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.
Less animals would suffer. That's true. But we can change the way we raise and treat cattle too, and cause less suffering.They suffer LESS if people ate vegan. Or better, LESS animals suffer. Obviously the numbers do make a difference.
I can assure you I'm not. I strongly believe it's wrong to feed cattle maize and soya. Instead they should be allowed to graze. This would probably mean we wouldn't be able to feed as much cattle as today. It would be impossible to produce the same amount of meat with "animal-friendly" and natural methods of raising cattle. In my opinion, it would lead to a healthy balance and not an artifcial one as exists today.You're still missing the point about meat production being inefficient. An example:
Actually, there are differences between men and women.
To a great extent? Or to some extent?For that reason, painlessly killing a cow isn't morally wrong, while painlessly killing a human being would be (in most circumstances anyway). But the important point is that in suffering, humans and other animals are alike (to a great extent at least).
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.
Actually, I put homo sapiens and all other creatures on the same level. You hold homo sapiens above all other animals.Yup. It's logical, consistent, and it produces the least amount of suffering. If you favor Homo sapiens above anything else, you're making the same mistake racists or sexists made.
You know I had brain fever, and that is to be mad.
[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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
Quite right. We might as well.
Suddenly?And then suddenly, you say we SHOULD minimize suffering, but only the suffering we cause?
It makes perfect sense to me.How does that make sense?
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.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?
Black or white?Either suffering is bad, or it isn't.
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.If you say it's only bad when it's 'unnatural', you need to provide a reason why nature is so good.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Some people try to justify that human interests are more valuable than animal interests because humans are more intelligent.
You mean I don't have a god complex? Correct.You don't even have a level. You just let nature do whatever nature does.
I don't? Thanks for informing me.You don't qualify for an ethical discussion if that's your view (unless you somehow justify it).
You know I had brain fever, and that is to be mad.
"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).
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.
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.
Nope, never even heard of the man (or woman). Why is it nonsense?
So your statement was speciesist after all?Speciesism:= Discrimination based solely on the species an organism belongs to.
I think you have it backwards. You put humans above everything else. Not me.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.
Huh?Tautology, but that's exactly the point.
Literally or what? You've lost me.The point of ethics is to recognize that the ground you're standing on isn't special.
Exactly, that's what I said. The lion's interest is just as real as the spider's.To others, their interests are just as real as yours.
Yes, I'm with you again....Accepting that premise, we turn to ethics and try to figure out how to act best. All interests shall be considered equally.
Wait. I thought all interests were considered equally? You've lost me 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.
You know I had brain fever, and that is to be mad.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote