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.
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.Originally Posted by G L Wilson
"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.)
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.
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.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
Feed the man meat. Feed the women and children pap, I say.
Animals eat other animals. Should we force them to convert?
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.
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.
And the lion will lie down with the lamb. Amen.
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.
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.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
I love the smell of livestock being slaughtered in the morning, not.
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
