Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[Journyman16]

I really don't get why it is seen as evil to kill for food. We live in a fully-inter-related universe where everything connects. If we turn around and say it is somehow evil to kill prey animals we remove them from the web of life. Should we then put them all down because they no longer have purpose? Should we kill all carnivores because they live solely on killing prey?

Each life form has it's purpose, it's niche in the vast web. To impose our fake ethics on the web is to deny Nature. Even if you're a Chrisitan you still have God providing animals for us to eat and use.

To kill inhumanely is wrong, solely because we can do it better. But look out at the world - lions kill by suffocation, hyenas often eat tyheir prey while it is still alive. Wolves, like us, hunt cursorily, so should we wipe them all out for making the prey suffer before death?

Personally I think it is fine to eat animals - but as Humans we should ensure they live good lives and die without knowing about it. The factory farms and some of the practices we see show many humans are lower than animals - maybe we use them for soylent green? :D

 

[ForEverAfter]

I don't think anybody said it was evil.

 

[What 23]

Semantics...

 

[What 23]

“First, to hunt effectively in a group, humans developed language which allowed communication of concepts such as “friend” and “enemy” or “us” and “them”- concepts that serve to justify aggressive actions against others”

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Hunting_Hypothesis

The human gut consists mainly of the small intestines, which are responsible for the rapid breakdown of proteins and absorption of nutrients. The ape’s gut is primarily colon, which indicates a vegetarian diet. This structural difference supports the hunting hypothesis in being an evolutionary branching point between modern humans and modern primates. Buss also cites human teeth in that fossilized human teeth have a thin enamel coating with very little heavy wear and tear that would result from a plant diet. The absence of thick enamel also indicates that historically humans have maintained a meat-heavy diet.[1] Further, Buss looks to Vitamins A and B12, which the body is unable to produce, but are found in meat. The absence of these vitamins in the human body also implies a human dependence upon meat to obtain such vitamins.[1] Finally, Buss notes that the bones of animals human ancestors killed found at Olduvai Gorge have cut marks at strategic points on the bones that indicate tool usage and provide evidence for ancestral butchers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_hypothesis

 

[thujone]

Okay. So on what grounds do you underpin your ethics?

ebola

sustainability.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Semantics...

"I don't think tax evasion is ethical."
"Come on, now: it's hardly evil!"
"I didn't say it was."

This is not a semantic distinction, IMO.

i don't get why some of you are so profoundly obsessed with suffering. we suffer as humans, and we've all made people suffer intentionally or unintentionally. what's your deal, really?

I don't think anybody is obsessed with suffering. This topic of discussion directly pertains to it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't discuss suffering much outside of certain contexts.
I'm hardly obsessed.

So on what grounds do you underpin your ethics?

sustainability.

I couldn't be bothered dissecting the implications of this, but I don't think you do base all ethical decisions on the sustainability of the human race (if that's what you're suggesting)... If, on the other hand, you're saying that all of your actions are selfish - on an individual level - that cannot really serve the species, can it?

 

[turkalurk]

What a shame, I spent so much time writing my first message that my phone died! I lost it all!

Basically, I appreciate the Vegans for their empathy for other forms of life, especially the ones who try not to even step on bugs! Its a very beautiful high horse! A sight to behold! But, where would you draw the line? Do you feel bad at the bacteria you kill when you wash your hands? (personally, I've only considered giving up animals that aren't wild caught, but its still on the list of things I ought to do that may never happen)

I believe in following a middle way through life, and am learning to harness the power of inaction. I have faith that the World(some may say God) will take care of things in due time. The way of the World must run its course. Suffering is an important aspect of our existence as it inspires intelligence. It motivates our efforts to protect ourselves and the ones we care about from experiencing harm. Competition reinforces and enhances these evolutionary procedures that develop our intelligence. Yes, the fittest survive so killing a small amount of a dense population of species actually strengthens and enhances the effectiveness of natural selection and improves the balance of chain of life.

Someday, the same technology developed for war could lead to the ability to protect the entire world from catastrophic disasters like asteroids. It could lead to the the spread of life and intellegence(possibly A.I.) across the galaxy. The suffering life goes through will have allowed one of its many forms to evolve enough intellect to protect its home planet and possibly spread itself to every possible place it can reach. We have the potential to create a superior kind of intellect which could far out think the human mind. Without our pain, we would not be what we are now.

I think if an alien civilization was advanced enough to travel here, they would be intelligent enough to respect how precious and rare life is, and would not want to disturb its fragile system. We are heading that direction, but many lifetimes away as a primitive species. If not, and they are as brutal as us, then must adapt and overcome, and emerge from the fires of conflict with renewed stength and intellect so we can continue to protect our Earth.

In other words, I respect all the varying opinions to varying degrees, but veganism is less ethical because it cannot withstand the scrutiny of Kant's universalization. Sometimes, the highest prettiest horse, isn't the most ethical one. Its not presently a viable option for all humans to stop killing other forms of life. It will only become viable when we develop technology that will make eating flesh obsolete. We are the top Apex predator. Chaos would ensue as economies would collapse, and evasive species would destroy entire ecosystems.

It kind of reminds me of that canadian woman who stopped her car in the highway to let some geese pass. A motorcyclist and his 16 year old daughter were killed when they slammed into her as she forgot the emergency lights. Perhaps, Ego is also present in those individuals who are arrogant enough to believe they know what is best for the World and powerful enough to mold it into their making. Its hard for an imaginative mind to accept, because one can only imagine how the World "ought" to be. We can always imagine a better way to live. But, who is an individual to decide how the whole should operate? Nature must run its course; it knows no shortcuts.

 

[-=SS=-]

-SS- are you always on a ego-high?

I just ask, as I've had some correcting experiences. Like, I didn't use to have any time for Christianity, but I looked upto Peter Deunov who taught an unique form of spirituality. Then one day I read he only had one goal throughout his life, to become as much like Christ as possible, and I thought if he was good enough for him he had to be good enough for me. But it takes some humility to go through changes like that.

Are you for real? An ego high? I've merely been trying to poke holes in what is a pretty baseless argument put forward by yourself Ninane. You had the audacity to claim that there isn't even a real case for eating meat! And now you're starting to proclaim about this Deunov guy and your own subjective experiences relating to spiritual matters.

But animals aren't morons who run in front of your car. How do people come up with these arguments? It's not a student meeting.

You've missed the point entirely. Of course animals aren't morons who run in front of cars, does that really need to be said. It was a point of comparison to highlight the lack of consistency between your points of argument. I think you might benefit from actually attending a student debate.

I'm sorry, I can not continue to debate against you.

 

[LuGoJ]

You've missed the point entirely. Of course animals aren't morons who run in front of cars

I think the local deer would beg to differ. They definitely like to run in front of cars here, especially at night. That's more out curiosity though, i believe.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Possums are the same around here. Even PETA condones swerving your car

 

[LuGoJ]

Possums are the same around here. Even PETA condones swerving your car

I wonder if they are attracted to the lights like deer are.

 

[-=SS=-]

I think the local deer would beg to differ.

They don't drink up the local ale though as far as I'm aware. Or wear offensively tight clothing.

 

[LuGoJ]

They don't drink up the local ale though as far as I'm aware. Or wear offensively tight clothing.

Maybe the deer in the uk don't...

 

[LuGoJ]

They don't drink up the local ale though as far as I'm aware. Or wear offensively tight clothing.

Maybe the deer in the uk don't...

All i'll say say is that a drunk deer attempting to prance around in a pair of skinny jeans is not a pretty sight.

 

[Ninae]

Well, this has just shown how it's just not possible for vegetarians and non-vegetarians to come to an agreement and the best we can do is tolerate each other. But I don't start disagreements with non-vegetarians unless they deliberately provoke me. I'm just not always in the mood to let them get away with it, especially in a stupid way.

In this day and age I don't know why non-vegetarians don't just leave vegetarians alone as long as they don't say anything to them. The reasons people come up with to try to justify meat-consumption are just not real. The nutrition argument is not true to life, which you'll find it you really learn about nutrition. I'm still alive, and the healthiest times in my life have been when I've lived as a vegetarian health-freak. And most who use that argument won't have a healthy lifestyle to show to, anyway, or even care about it, which means it has nothing to do with reality and makes them a hypocrite.

But these ideas that "killing plants is as bad" is terrible to come out with for someone who thinks killing animals is completely different to killing a human. After all, animals are much closer to us than the plant kingdom, so I don't even know where that comes from. Like I said, it's just grasping at straws or coming out with the first thing that enters your mind most of the time.

 

[socko]

It's possible to come to an agreement if nobody is angry or has an agenda. This just happens to be one topic where somebody from one side likes to bash the other. What if we categorized life forms by the amount of self-awareness they seem to have? Based on the category, one could choose what to eat. Things like plants have none and would be ZERO while most humans would be a TEN. everything else would fall somewhere in between. Vegetarians would only eat level ZERO life forms while canibals would eat level TEN lifeforms.

 

[turkalurk]

I laid down a simple and logical argument using a known philosophical method for determining whether an idea is ethical. Veganism has failed the test of universalization. You said there were no arguments for the eating of meat, yet I have seen no attempts to counter my argument.

 

[ebola?]

Well, this has just shown how it's just not possible for vegetarians and non-vegetarians to come to an agreement and the best we can do is tolerate each other.

Well, we were having a relatively fruitful exchange earlier in this thread, so there's no reason that discussion now needs to continue to devolve.

ebola

 

[murphythecat]

I laid down a simple and logical argument using a known philosophical method for determining whether an idea is ethical. Veganism has failed the test of universalization. You said there were no arguments for the eating of meat, yet I have seen no attempts to counter my argument.

what is your argument? Ive seen a long text not really looking at the reality of the situation we put animals into.

killing animals is cruel. dont you agree?
especially when we know theres other way much more ethical to eat and sustain ourselves, killing animals is simply not the more ethical choice.
lets not talk about aliens and simply look at the reality. we could sustain ourselves with nuts, seeds, fruits. we kill millions of animal every day and that could be avoided. also, have you ever seen the environmental impact meat farms have? its much much more damaging for the planet to try to feed people with meat.

In other words, I respect all the varying opinions to varying degrees, but veganism is less ethical because it cannot withstand the scrutiny of Kant's universalization. Sometimes, the highest prettiest horse, isn't the most ethical one. Its not presently a viable option for all humans to stop killing other forms of life. It will only become viable when we develop technology that will make eating flesh obsolete. We are the top Apex predator. Chaos would ensue as economies would collapse, and evasive species would destroy entire ecosystems.

It kind of reminds me of that canadian woman who stopped her car in the highway to let some geese pass. A motorcyclist and his 16 year old daughter were killed when they slammed into her as she forgot the emergency lights. Perhaps, Ego is also present in those individuals who are arrogant enough to believe they know what is best for the World and powerful enough to mold it into their making. Its hard for an imaginative mind to accept, because one can only imagine how the World "ought" to be. We can always imagine a better way to live. But, who is an individual to decide how the whole should operate? Nature must run its course; it knows no shortcuts.

kant universalism is a great example to defend the stopping of killing animals.
seriously, what you say here make no sense. we are apex predator indeed, and we could use our force for the good of the whole planet. right now, we dont care about no other living beings but humans. if you think this is ethical, I wonder on what basis your ethicality is based upon.

 

[murphythecat]

heres some arguments to stop that b-12 excuse to eat meat:

Q. What about other nutrients that the vegetarian diet does not provide?

A. The vegetarian diet provides all the nutrients a human needs. The only exception is the vegan
who does not eat any animal products could be missing vitamin B-12. This vitamin can be found
in miso (fermented soy paste) and shitake mushrooms. The lacto-ovo vegetarian has no problem
as animal products contain high amounts of B-12.

The cause of nearly all diseases, especially in developed countries, is not the lack of any
nutrients, but rather the excess of too much food and fat. We do not hear on the news of anyone
dying from lack of protein or lack of iron or lack of amino acids. The real problem is too much
food and fat. People in developed countries eat too much fat and protein. The excess iron and
protein leads to the health problems listed above.

An example is vitamin B-12, discussed above. We only need very miniscule amounts of this
vitamin and it is stored in the body. The amount of vitamin B-12 that we need is a very puny one
milligram for every 667 days (almost two years)! Yet, some meat eaters continue to argue that
vegetarians are not getting enough nutrients such as protein and vitamin B-12. If you watch the
news and live in a developed country such as the U.S., ask yourself how many times do you hear
of people dying of scurvy or protein deficiency and other nutrient deficiencies? It just does not
happen. The problem in developed countries‘ nutrition is excess protein and excess fat which has
made heart disease the number one killer in men and women.

“First, to hunt effectively in a group, humans developed language which allowed communication of concepts such as “friend” and “enemy” or “us” and “them”- concepts that serve to justify aggressive actions against others”

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Hunting_Hypothesis

The human gut consists mainly of the small intestines, which are responsible for the rapid breakdown of proteins and absorption of nutrients. The ape’s gut is primarily colon, which indicates a vegetarian diet. This structural difference supports the hunting hypothesis in being an evolutionary branching point between modern humans and modern primates. Buss also cites human teeth in that fossilized human teeth have a thin enamel coating with very little heavy wear and tear that would result from a plant diet. The absence of thick enamel also indicates that historically humans have maintained a meat-heavy diet.[1] Further, Buss looks to Vitamins A and B12, which the body is unable to produce, but are found in meat. The absence of these vitamins in the human body also implies a human dependence upon meat to obtain such vitamins.[1] Finally, Buss notes that the bones of animals human ancestors killed found at Olduvai Gorge have cut marks at strategic points on the bones that indicate tool usage and provide evidence for ancestral butchers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_hypothesis